Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:DamianJohn

2013-10-21T08:02:18Z

DamianJohn:

Hi, My name is Damian.

This is the first time in about 6 months that I have been able to see the website. Anyway, farewell, I wish you all the best, but if I can't see it, I can't edit it.

Perhaps when the site is fixed I may come back.

Talk:Modern conservatism

2013-05-24T02:23:23Z

DamianJohn:

What about economic positions? laissez faire capitalism, pro private sector, anti public sector unless service is vital, ie military, curbs on union power, low Taxation, minimal government spending. Would you be offended if I add these?--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 20:06, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
:I wonder about some of those listed as well. I can't imagine for example that a modern conservative would be in favour of paid parental leave and access to free or cheap healthcare for babies and infants, yet without support for those things I would say one could not claim to be pro-life or pro-parental rights. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:20, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::Economic issues follow the social ones, like a tail on a dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
:::Perhaps you could elaborate on that. For example, how does the social position of being pro-life lead onto the economic positions of making it very difficult for a poor, young mother to afford to raise her child by eliminating government assistance for poverty stricken mothers, and giving the money saved back to the wealthy in the form of tax relief? Surely the positions are at odds with one another - one encourages abortions whilst the other is against it? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:23, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Modern conservatism

2013-05-24T00:20:53Z

DamianJohn:

Talk:Essay: Atheist holidays filled with goodwill, charitableness and good cheer

2013-05-04T09:57:14Z

DamianJohn:

I think this page should be deleted as it serves no purpose what so ever. I have put a vote up so we can vote on the issue. Please attach your signature and a # to whichever one you wish to vote for. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:41, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

'''Keep'''
#I voted to keep this article, but my vote was removed for alleged "trolling". So I will restate my case in a less snarky manner. I don't see anything wrong with a bit of levity as long as it is clearly marked as an essay and is not masquerading as a genuine article. Though I don't find User:Conservative's work to be funny in the slightest bit, that's not reason enough for deletion. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
#People who stumble upon this place should be able to see exactly the kind of site this is. These sorts of articles should be linked to from the mainpage so nobody is under any illusions about the quality of the discourse. We have to reach rock bottom before we can improve as a site. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:57, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
'''Delete'''
#-because its childish humour. KBeer 18:46, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
#I agree with KBeer but would leave out the word "humour". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:58, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# Childish and also factually incorrect (Mother's Day, Father's Day, 4th of July, etc.) [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:07, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# Agree with Kbeer et.al. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:44, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Wait and See'''
#--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:24, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# at the risk of banning, I'm learning toward deletion but my strong belief in the freedom of speech is holding me back... On a (semi) related note, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] please unlock the page [[Penn Jillette]] so I can bring the facts up to date. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 03:09, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
'''Other Thoughts'''
# I'm not sure why this particular article was singled out for deletion. The "tumbleweed gag" is a staple of internet forum and wiki communities. If it is decided that this article should be deleted for being "childish", then the following articles should be deleted as well:
*[[Essay:_Great_and_inspiring_art_by_atheists_on_atheism]]
*[[Essay:_The_benefits_of_atheism]]
*[[Essay:_The_latest_findings_for_evolution_which_are_particularly_powerful_...]]
*[[New_Liberal_Ideas_of_the_21st_Century]]
*[[Essay:Liberal_Facts]]
*[[Essay:_Beautiful_songs_written_about_atheism]].
--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:22, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

== True conservatives don't bow their knees to liberal mobs! ==

True conservatives don't bow their knees to liberal mobs - especially atheist/agnostic mobs! Hold your vote libs, but I am not unlocking the web page to pacify some humorless and thin-skinned liberals! :) "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." - Henny Youngman[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

What's your understanding of the word, "mobs", Cons? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:23, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

I actually laughed when I saw the page, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the content of the site, such as the educational resources. KBeer 21:38, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::AlanE, a very unreasonable group of people who have difficulty controlling their emotions and focus on things which do not matter! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:49, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Cons, old mate; two against and one "wait and see" is not a "mob" by any definition of the word. (Unless it was three and a bit bottles of Bundy in NFQ - ''"How much ya drink last Sat'dee, Dick?" "Big mobs, mate, would you believe, ay."'') [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::: Mob is more commonly used by aborginies referring to groups of white fellas(or sometime others such as lebos, wogs, coconuts/fobs, asians ect.) people. Or a number of kangaroos are also called a mob. '' Some nice tucker in that mob, hey uncle?''. Also only had a quite one last saturday mate, had a six pack or two and a fair whack of rum bottle. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:50, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
Actually I'm very good at controlling my emotions. Also I don't think typing a # and giving a four word reason requires a great deal of focus... KBeer 22:21, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-05-03T05:02:07Z

DamianJohn: /* Does an atheist conservative have any place here? */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
 
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013

==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

== North Korea and Laos ==

Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

== Suggested fixes ==

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

== Atheism and education ==

Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

-antibias

== Autism ==

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::::KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] by [[C.S. Lewis]] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Evidence for Christianity]. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.
:::::Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

How is the term "conservative atheist" an oxymoron? Conservative and Christian are not synonyms. Chloe Smith, the MP for Norwich North is one example of an Athiest Conservative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099971/Defiant-Speaker-vows-prayer-ban-Commons.html
--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
::Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?
::It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the [[oxymoron]] page is an oxymoron itself.--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-05-03T05:01:39Z

DamianJohn: /* Does an atheist conservative have any place here? */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
 
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013

==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

== North Korea and Laos ==

Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

== Suggested fixes ==

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

== Atheism and education ==

Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

-antibias

== Autism ==

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::::KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] by [[C.S. Lewis]] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Evidence for Christianity]. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.
:::::Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

How is the term "conservative atheist" an oxymoron? Conservative and Christian are not synonyms. Chloe Smith, the MP for Norwich North is one example of an Athiest Conservative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099971/Defiant-Speaker-vows-prayer-ban-Commons.html
--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
::Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?
It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the [[oxymoron]] page is an oxymoron itself.--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-05-03T02:21:39Z

DamianJohn: /* Does an atheist conservative have any place here? */

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-02T09:32:51Z

DamianJohn: /* No */

{{debate}}
Frequently items are posted to the [[Template:Mainpageright|"In the News"]] section of the [[Main Page]] which, while they may be interesting and informative, do not fit the clearly stated purpose of this section. This occurrence has led to a significant amount of friction which has then erupted into an increasing number of arguments on [[Talk:Main Page]] and elsewhere.
As a proposed solution to this, I put the following question to the users of this site:
<blockquote>
Does the Conservapedia Main Page need to be redesigned in order to include a separate "In the Blogs" or "Around the Web" section where non-news items can be posted?
</blockquote>
==Yes==
Many other pages around the web successfully display what is going on in many different areas of the Internet but are generally quite careful to keep the straight news separate from the blogs and clearly label each. This not only adds to the professional appearance of the site's main page, but is also the most responsible way to go as clearly separates hard news from blogs which may contain any imaginable blend of facts and personal opinion. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes. There are many things happening all over the internet that may be interesting, entertaining, or informative, but do not fit neatly into the definition of "news". And there's no reason that space to highlight such items cannot be made on the main page. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:06, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

==No==
The site is what it is. Of course there are going to be a lot of articles and blogs referring to the decline of evolution, homosexuality and atheism because that is what the site is about. No need to change a part of the site (perhaps the only) that functions exactly as is intended. Note that it is not intended that everyone who edits at CP, or even its administrators (or owner!) will agree with everything that is posted there, but it is to generate interest and discussion on topical points. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

==Regardless of my opinion on the above question, these are other [[Main Page]] changes which I would like to see happen (Please include a DETAILED description of your proposed changes)==

The main page contributions should to reflect the full range of editors who work together to make this site run. As of the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&limit=500&action=history last 500 edits], 7 users make all of the contributions to the [[Template:Mainpageright|MPR]] news sections with 92.6% being made by only 3. While there is a [[Talk:Main_Page#MPR_Article_Suggestion|section on the main talk page]] for suggesting news stories, it seems to be little known and even less used. This has led to frustration/confusion among editors (See [[Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_for_a_Main_Page_Committee|here]]) and even a very well respected and experienced SYSOP in another case (as witnessed [[User_talk:Aschlafly#News_items_for_the_main_page|here]]). I don't know whether the rotating committee, a more visible "suggestion box" or something else entirely is the best option for getting a wider array of important stories on the Main Page, but I feel it's clear that something needs to be done. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

== Moot point ==

It seems as if this debate is a moot point as can be seen [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/05/great-tasting-news-blog-postsless.html HERE].

Gentlemen, you worked yourselves into a tizzy for nothing! All's well that ends well though. Soon antiquated Darwinism quackery will be thrown onto the dustbin of history! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Abortion

2013-04-12T00:25:49Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Darkbludd (talk) to last revision by Dsherman

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|An unborn child in the womb. Liberals believe that the unborn child has no right to life.]]
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion].</ref> often causing [[fetal pain]]. As of 2012, it is estimated there have been over 54 million abortions in the [[United States]] since 1973.<ref name=factsheet>''National Right to Life Committee''. [http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042 U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current)]. National Right to Life Factsheet, January 2012. (Privacy laws and likely desire to keep this silent holocaust from raising alarm hinders data collection on abortion. CDC researchers have admitted they probably undercount the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Abortions from CA and NH have not been counted by the CDC since 1998, and reports from other states are also missing for some years.)</ref> Abortion is a billion-dollar industry in the [[United States]]. Although [[Planned Parenthood]] likes to claim abortion accounts for just 3% of its services, according to its 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of revenue, and half to two-thirds relates to its abortion services. (''See [[Abortion#Planned_Parenthood.27s_Budget|Planned Parenthood's Budget]]'') Dr. George Tiller "estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000."<ref>Hegeman, R. (2009, March 25). [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/25/kan_doctor_testifies_in_abortion_case_against_him/ Kan. doctor testifies in abortion case against him]. ''Associated Press''.</ref>

All of the arguments for abortion fall flat when given serious scrutiny. Right to choice is a misnomer, since moral people can recognize that choosing to murder is a choice worthy of punishment. Right to one's body is no excuse for using that body to harm others. A right to privacy should not permit the taking of life when that life is inconvenient, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body. And
{{TOC right}}
as Thomas Lucente Jr. once pointed out, saying one can't criticize a woman's choice to murder her children is the same as saying one can't criticize the president without being the president.<ref name=lucente>Lucente Jr., T.J. (2012, January 29). [http://www.limaohio.com/articles/right-78475-privacy-one.html Right to Privacy is Not a License to Kill]. ''LimaOhio.com.'' Freedom Communications, Inc.</ref> Both life of the mother and rape are rare circumstances accounting for less than 1% of all abortions, with little bearing on the broader "abortion on demand" issue, particularly since all legislation the Pro-Life movement has been putting out recently has included exceptions for them, and many states had laws allowing abortion for such cases before Roe v. Wade - abortion was legalized for other reasons. (''See [[Abortion#Arguments_On_Abortion|Arguments On Abortion]]'')

Ultimately, this debate is about when a fetus becomes a human being worthy of all applicable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the [[Declaration of Independence]], for once it is we should not take its life lightly. And when it comes to that, 18,150 abortions occur after the 21st week of pregnancy<ref name=induced>(2011, August). [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/ Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States]. ''Guttmacher Institute''.</ref> - the earliest point children can be born prematurely and live.<ref name=tooyoung>Rochman, B. (2011, May 27). [http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/baby-born-at-21-weeks-survives-how-young-is-too-young-to-save/ A 21-Week-Old Baby Survives and Doctors Ask, How Young is Too Young to Save?] ''Time Magazine''.</ref> An additional 45,980 abortions occur in the 16th-20th weeks of pregnancy.<ref name=induced /> These are 60 thousand abortions each year that are clearly murder, since the child is at or near the same stage of pregnancy as children born prematurely via C-Section. Furthermore, substantial fetal development occurs within the first 12 weeks (1st trimester) of pregnancy, including brain wave activity at 6 weeks, complete body sensitivity at 10 weeks, and all facial expressions (including smiling) at 11 weeks.<ref name=clowes>Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. [http://www.hli.org/index.php/the-facts-of-life/480?task=view The Facts of Life]. Ch. 12. Front Royal: Human Life International.
Also in: Sharing the Pro-Life Message. Chicago: Pro-Life Action League, 2009. Print.</ref> By not erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on the inalienable right to life given by our Creator, the Pro-Choice movement has brought the blood of countless children on their hands, and on our nation's. (''See [[Abortion#When_Does_Life_Begin.3F|When Does Life Begin?]]'')

A growing body of evidence increasingly suggests that abortion is linked to Breast Cancer, later premature births, and other health concerns. Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.<ref>Rodgers-Melnick, A. (2002, January 20). [http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp Groups support those who regret abortions]. ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette''.</ref> Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.<ref>"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born," observed President [[Ronald Reagan]]. He also observed, "With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child ''is not a living human being'', then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us."</ref> "Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones," warned a full-page ad by women who had abortions.<ref>''Anglicans for Life'' and ''Priests for Life''. [http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf We Regret Our Abortions]. ''Orange County Right to Life''.</ref> Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. (''See [[Abortion#Health_Concerns|Health Concerns]]'')

One of NARAL's founders, [[Bernard Nathanson]], acknowledged that NARAL in the early days of the Pro-Choice movement simply fabricated statistics on back-alley abortions; inflating the actual numbers ten-fold to get abortion legalized. Rather than making abortion rare, the annual number of abortions has increased 1500% since [[Roe v. Wade]].<ref name=nathanson>Kupelian, David (2005, January 20). "[http://www.wnd.com/2005/01/28544/ Blood Confessions: Ex-Abortionists Spill Their Guts]." ''Whistleblower Magazine''. ''Whistleblower Magazine'' (2003, January 2). "[http://www.wnd.com/2003/01/16460/ Ex-Abortionists Expose America's Greatest Scandal]."</ref> (''See [[Abortion#History|History]]'') Gallup polling in 2012 reveals that just 24% of Americans support abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy,<ref name=gallupabortion>''Gallup''. "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx/ Abortion]." Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?</ref> even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months. <ref name=ninemonths>[http://www.whyprolife.com/is-abortion-legal-all-9-months-of-pregnancy/ Is Abortion Legal All 9 Months of Pregnancy?] ''WhyProLife.com''.</ref> Just 25% believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, and an additional 13% believe it should be legal under most circumstances. Most Americans believe abortion should usually be illegal save in rare cases.<ref name=gallupabortion /> (''See [[Abortion#Public_Opinion|Public Opinion]]'')

[[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown (and abortion abolished<ref>''Catholic World News'' (2007, April 11). [http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=50451 Liberal abortion law takes effect in Portugal]. Trinity Communications.</ref>), and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.<ref>Johnston, W.R., Dr. (2008, October 9). [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html Historical abortion statistics, Poland]. ''Johnston's Archive'.</ref>

==Statistics on abortion==

* As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 ''Roe v. Wade'' decision. After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in the year 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million infants murdered by abortion a year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI).<ref name=factsheet />
* Approximately 22% of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion.<ref>Jones RK and Kooistra, K., [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4304111/abstract Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States], 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2011, 43(1):41-50. (Excludes miscarriages.)</ref>
* Only about 1 percent each year are attributed to rape and incest.<ref name=rare>Johnston, W.R., Dr. (2008, October 9). [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html Reasons given for having abortions in the United States]. ''Johnston's Archive'.</ref> 40% of women ages 15 to 44 have had at least one abortion. 4 out of 10 teen pregnancies end in murder by abortion. Based on the rate of abortion, it was estimated (2000) that 43 percent of American women would have at least one abortion by the age of 45.
* 7 out of 10 U.S. women are sexually active (usually as fornicators) but do not want to become pregnant.<ref>''Alan Guttmacher Institute'', In Brief: Fact Sheet, [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/ Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States], August 2011.</ref>
* Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. 57% of all women having abortions between 15-44 are in their 20’s. 36% of non-Hispanic women are abortions were white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, and 25% are hispanic.<ref name=patients>Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, [https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients], 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.</ref>
* 37% of women killing babies by abortion were Protestant, (include those who identified as “Christian” but who did not specify a denomination) while 28% were Catholic, and 20% identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist (in 2000, some 13% of abortion patients aged 18 and older identified as born-again or evangelical before the question was reworded slightly for the 2008 survey), while 27% gave no religious affiliation, increasing from 22% in 2000. (Protestants were under-represented among those committing abortion in proportion to the total number of Protestants nationwide, and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women.)<ref name=patients />
* Although 66% of women having abortions had some type of health insurance, 57% paid for their abortion out of pocket. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket.<ref name=patients />

==Arguments On Abortion==
The following are some common Pro-Choice arguments on abortion, and problems with the reasoning.
===Right to Choose===
The obvious question not being confronted is what choice is at stake? The choice to kill another human being to bypass the consequences and responsibilities that should accompany the choice to create another life; in essence the choice to murder one's own children so sex can be engaged in freely without responsibility or consequence.<ref>Hoffman, M.C. (2012, May 28). [http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-is-murder-for-the-purpose-of-population-control-says-turkish-prime Abortion is ‘murder’ for the purpose of population control, says Turkish prime minister]. ''Life Site News''.</ref> Sometimes women die from abortion.<ref>See "Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by "Safe" and Legal Abortion." [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]</ref> Since abortion is deliberate and thought about in advance, it is comparable to a premeditated killing.<ref>First-degree murder is defined as "a killing which is deliberate and premeditated." [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/first+degree+murder First Degree Murder]. ''The Free Dictionary''.</ref>
====Rare Circumstances: Life of Mother and Rape====
''BBC News'' has an article called "Abortion in self-defence" arguing that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life and health are at risk, and that this is justifiable self-defense. However, ''BBC News'' acknowledges that abortion is NOT justified for the following reasons: {{cquote|"But supposing the mother is not in physical danger, what then? There are a number of cases where some people argue that a woman should have the right to an abortion, such as: damage to mental health, damage to family, damage to career prospects, damage to financial prospects, damage to plans for her life. The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia. But if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life, then these cases of self-defence may be arguable."
-''BBC News''.<ref name=bbc>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/selfdefence.shtml Abortion in Self-Defence]. ''BBC News''. Retrieved July 23, 2012.</ref>}} However, (A) danger to life of the mother, like rape, is a very rare circumstance that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions<ref name=rare />, (B) all major legislation put out by the Right to Life movement over the past decade has included exceptions allowing abortions for rape and life of the mother (e.g. [[Mexico City Policy]], [[Born Alive Infant Protection Act]], [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]], etc.) and (C) at least 13 states had legislation allowing abortion for rape or life of the mother BEFORE Roe v. Wade<ref>[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortiontimeline.html Abortion History Timeline]. ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref> - abortion was legalized for other reasons.

The bottom line is that apart from such extremely rare circumstances, ''BBC News'' acknowledges that "''The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia.''"<ref name=bbc /> Choosing to kill another person, in other words, is unjustifiable unless the mother's life is in danger or, debatably, if rape occurred. In fact, those who bring up cases like rape and life of the mother are doing so because, deep inside, they themselves know that choosing to murder another human being is justifiable only under such extreme circumstances, and NOT for abortion on demand.

The only way to justify abortion apart from such circumstances is, as ''BBC News'' says, "''if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life''".<ref name=bbc /> You see, this is not about the right to choose at all, and such a slogan distracts from the real issue - the real issue is whether the fetus is a human being deserving of a full right to life. Because if it is a human being worthy of the right to life, then there is no excuse for "choosing to kill" via abortion on demand.

===Right to One's Body===
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to their bodies. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft, and therefore, this is not an absolute right, but a privilege that is not intended to exceed another's unalienable rights, including the right to life. As Hugh V. McLachlan of ''Glasgow Caledonian University'' pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one's body and "''we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions and
disadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies.''" {{cquote|"Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: 'That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it'. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if 'X' stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: 'That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?' On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when 'X' pertains to one's body or to parts of it? I do not think so."
-Hugh V. McLachlan, ''Glasgow Caledonian University''.<ref name=mclachlan>McLachlan, H.V. (1997). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377347/ Bodies, Rights, and Abortions]. Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 23. p. 176.</ref>}}
As McLachlan continues to point out, this emphasis on rights neglects the other side of the coin, responsibilities or duties. He gives on pg. 177 the example of an insurance policy, and how using one's body to commit suicide can invalidate such a contract.<ref name=mclachlan /> Logically, creating another human life should likewise bring responsibly for actions toward that life - how is the decision to create another human life of lesser importance than the decision to sign an insurance contract? Why should one be able to kill a separate person to void the sexual decision to bring about another life, yet not be able to kill oneself without voiding an insurance contract? {{cquote|"Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others."
-Francis J. Beckwith, ''Christian Research Journal''.<ref>Beckwith, F.J. (1991). [https://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life009.html Doesn't a woman have the right to control her own body?] ''Christian Research Journal''. At ''ChristianAnswers.net''.</ref>}}Ultimately, the real question is whether the fetus in question is another human being to be accorded unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for if so, no right to one's body should give power to infringe on its unalienable right to life. Your right to your body does not include the right, in other words, to kill others using that body to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of a sexual decision to create another life. That is what in the real world is called "murder" and it is reprehensible. Therefore, the real question is at what point a fetus becomes a human being.

===Right to Privacy===
To get abortion legalized, the Pro-Choice movement had to argue that women should have a "right to privacy".<ref>Levin, M.R. (2005, March 14). [http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp Death by Privacy]. ''The National Review''.</ref> However, logically, if the fetus is a human being and thus murder would be committed, privacy is no excuse for such murder. Logically, killing someone in the privacy of one's own home should no more be an excuse for murder than killing them in the privacy of one's body. Furthermore, as Judge Henry J. Friendly pointed out in the nation's first major abortion case, [[Hall v. Lefkowitz]], abortion is actually a complete violation of privacy when you look at it, requiring intervention in a woman's most private areas by a physician and variety of medical personnel.
{{cquote|A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests... Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection.<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]. ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref>}}
===Women Choose, Not Men===
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say men and fathers should have no say in the abortion debate, only women. However, as Thomas J. Lucente Jr. points out, this is similar to saying one can't criticize the President unless one is the President. {{cquote|"The pro-abortion crowd will argue that because I am a man, I should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion, unless, of course, I support the mass murder of 50 million babies in the last 39 years. That's akin to saying I can't criticize the president unless I have been the president."
-Thomas J. Lucente Jr.<ref name=lucente />}} As [[Alan Keyes]] has pointed out, the Pro-Choice movement essentially is arguing for the baby's rights to be dependent on the mother's desire for it, making women slave-owners, essentially - this is very different from the [[Declaration of Independence]] which says the Creator gives us our unalienable rights, rather than them being dependent upon other people.<ref>Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). [http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm The Declaration of Independence]. Retrieved from ''USHistory.org''. Independence Hall Association.</ref> {{cquote|"Either you can subscribe to the American creed which says that God endowed us with our rights, or you can subscribe to the abortion creed which says that those rights are the consequences of our mother's will."
-Alan Keyes, speech at Southern Methodist University, Feb. 24, 1997.<ref>[http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/Slavery.htm Former Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes shares his views on the commonalities between abortion and slavery]. ''AbortionTV.com''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|"... abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required... Well, it's a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don't recognize what that's saying? What that's saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother's choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust."
-Alan Keyes, speech in San Francisco, March 3, 2003.<ref>[http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/abortion_quotes.html Abortion Quotes]. ''NotableQuotes.com''.</ref>}} Ultimately, every American has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of other Americans when they are being murdered - regardless of gender. And to say a mother should be able to murder her children whenever she feels like it, apart from the father's opinions, is simply wrong.

==When Does Life Begin?==
Logically, we ought to be erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on another person's inalienable right to life, rather than seeing how close we can come to committing murder without doing so. Abortion in the U.S. is legal in all 9 months (36 weeks) of pregnancy.<ref name=ninemonths />
===Premature Birth===
Even though children can be born as early as 21 weeks after pregnancy<ref name=tooyoung /> the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, reports that 1.5% of the 1.21 million abortions in the United States occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.<ref name=induced /> Therefore, 18,150 abortions occur each year after the earliest point that children can be born prematurely and live. An additional 3.8% occur 16-20 weeks after pregnancy, an additional 45,980 abortions each year that are most certainly murder given proximity to time of premature birth.<ref name=induced /> Why is a baby considered human outside the womb, yet nothing more than a fetus to be aborted at or near the same point in pregnancy if still inside the womb? And what will abortionists argue? That this is "only" 50-60 thousand innocent lives being taken each year?

===Fetal Development===
{{cquote|"Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed as early as the ___ day after conception; the fetus is thus something more than inert matter. The rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights."
-Judge Henry Friendly, [[Hall v. Lefkowitz]].<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]." ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref>}}
According to Brian Clowes, Ph.D<ref name=clowes />, as cited by the Pro-Life Action League<ref>(2009). [http://www.whyprolife.com/life-in-the-womb/ Sharing the Pro-Life Message]. "Life in the Womb." Pro-Life Action League. Chicago.</ref>, fetal development occurs as follows after conception:
* 2 weeks: First completed brain cells appear.
* 3 weeks: Heart begins beating, eyes form; brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete.
* 4 weeks: Muscle development, arm and leg buds visible, neocortical cells appear, blood flows in baby's veins separate from mother's blood.
* 5 weeks: Pituitary gland forms, mouth, ears, and nose take shape.
* 6 weeks: Brain waves can be detected.
* 7 weeks: Cartilage skeleton completely formed, umbilical cord complete, brain coordinates voluntary muscle movement and involuntary organ movement, lips sensitive to touch.
* 8 weeks: Based on nervous system development, a fetus can likely feel pain, teeth present, all organs present save lungs, taste buds and fingerprints forming, responds to tapping on amniotic sac.
* 9 weeks: Fingernails form, can bend its fingers around an object and suck its thumb.
* 10 weeks: All parts of body sensitive to touch; can swallow, squint, frown, and pucker brow.
* 11 weeks: Breathing amniotic fluid and does so until birth, urination, all facial expressions (including smiling) possible, taste buds complete.
* 12 weeks: Can kick, turn over, make a fist, hiccup, cry, open its mouth, press its lips together, and practice breathing.
* 13 weeks: All senses are present, including vocal chords.
* 20 weeks: Can be surprised by loud external noises.
* 23 weeks: A fetus demonstrates REM (Rapid Eye Movement).
* 4 months: Can grasp, swim, and turn somersaults.
* 6 months: Hair growth on head and eyebrows, eyelashes form.
* 7 months: A fetus' hands can support its entire weight.
* 8 months: Fetus weighs more than 4 lbs., all body systems present.
* 9 months: After this point, the fetus gains a half lb. each week and 41 of the 45 total generations of cell replication have already taken place.

Given this, it is small wonder that 76% of Americans in 2011 disapprove of abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
 (''See [[Abortion#2nd_Trimester|Public Polling]]'')

==Health Concerns==
===Mental Health Risks From Abortion===
A comprehensive review of literature, published in the ''British Journal of Psychiatry'' suggests that "there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion."<ref name="BJP">{{cite web|url = http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/A11.full#sec-3|title =Abortion, mental health and dental disease|publisher = British Journal of Psychiatry|quote=A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. Coleman (pp. 180–186) suggests that these risks need to be reflected in the delivery of abortion services, and raises the thorny issue that 90% of UK abortions are justified on the presumption that abortion actually reduces the risk to mental health associated with continuing the pregnancy. There is an increasing awareness of increased comorbid physical illness in patients with severe mental illness. Kisely and colleagues (pp. 187–193) found that the levels of advanced dental disease were increased threefold in patients with severe mental illness. The authors suggest that there needs to be improved recognition of this problem – reflected in a more proactive approach to dental hygiene in these patients.|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref><ref name="DavenportMD">{{cite web|url = http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html|title =Major Study Links Suicide and Other Mental Health Problems to Abortion|publisher = [[American Thinker]]|quote=An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009," by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.|author=Mary L. Davenport, MD|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref>

===Abortion and Breast Cancer ===
The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref name=trumped>Malek, K. (2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 8(2), 41-45.</ref> "A new study coming from researchers in [[Sri Lanka]] finds women who had abortions ... [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] ... compared with those who kept their baby. ... The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey."<ref>Ertelt, S. (2010, June 22). [http://www.lifenews.com/nat6451.html Study Confirms Abortion Triples Breast Cancer Risk Among Sri Lanka Women]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref> LifeNews also reported in 2009 that a [[National Cancer Institute]] researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>Ertelt, S. (2009, January 1). [http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion-Breast Cancer Link True]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref> Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.<ref>(2002). [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm Breast Cancer Prevention Institute Online Brochure]. ''Breast Cancer Prevention Institute''.</ref> A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>Byrne, D. (2010, January 11). [http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html Breast cancer, oral contraceptives, abortion and lies (?)] ''ChicagoNow''.</ref><ref>It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.</ref> Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.<ref>Addison, T.E., M.D. (1998, July). [http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm A Chronology of Tobacco in the Civilized World], ''San Francisco Medicine''.</ref>
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”<ref>Ozman, V. et al. (2009, April 8). [http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37 Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study]. ''World Journal of Surgical Oncology'', 7(37). doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-37</ref>

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.<ref>Baklinski, T.M. (2009, July 29). [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html Study: Breast Cancer Risk 66% Higher in Turkish Women with Abortions]. ''LifeSiteNews.com''.</ref> <ref>Malek, K. (2009, July 28). [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref>

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.<ref>Janet R. Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584</ref><ref>(2001, March 28). [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm Women's Organization Accuses MAMM of Misleading Public About Abortion-Breast Cancer Link]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref> She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."<ref>L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.</ref> Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.<ref>Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.</ref>

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:<ref name=trumped />

:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link. She made the following observation:<ref>Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).</ref>

:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America. '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.''' Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes. Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence. He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following. Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it. Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.<ref>"Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).</ref> The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. <ref> R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).</ref>

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.<ref>A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).</ref> But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.<ref>N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).</ref> One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."<ref>Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).</ref>

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans, further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, "Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo."<ref>[[Joel Brind]], "[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data]," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).</ref> Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available at [http://www.bcpinstitute.org BCPInstitute.org].

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:<ref>[http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg's_testimony.htm Rosenberg's Testimony]. ''Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer''.</ref>

:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'

:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'

Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link. The flaws in these articles are exposed in the [[Harvard abortion study]] and "Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer" by Andrew Schlafly in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons''.<ref>Schafly, A. (2005, Spring). [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 10(1), 10-14.</ref>

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:<ref>Lanfranchi, A. (2008, Spring). [http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf The Federal Government and Academic Texts as Barriers to Informed Consent]. ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'', 13(1), 12-15.</ref>

:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine. Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.<ref>The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: "To dismiss that link is irresponsible." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html (Link no longer works)</ref> Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer. Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].

Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with [[liberal]] politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.

[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.]]

===Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births===

"At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs)."<ref>Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, "Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births," 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]</ref> Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening. "There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children."<ref>Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).</ref>

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:<ref name=lancet>Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg. [http://www.v2020la.org/pub/PUBLICATIONS_BY_TOPICS/ROP/Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_interventions.....pdf]Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-175. While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects. Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M. [http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/734.full History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey]. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740. Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15777440 Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study]. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.</ref>

:"For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure."

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:<ref name=lancet />

:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent. These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

:* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991"<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)</ref>
:* ''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: "African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women"<ref>Washington University School of Medicine (2007, February 12). [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm African-American Mothers]. (emphasis added)</ref>

In 2002 an article entitled "Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge" noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a "risk factor for both infertility and preterm birth."<ref>Moore, M.L. (2002, Fall). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595132/ Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge]. ''The Journal of Perinatal Education'', 11(4), 37-40. doi: 10.1624/105812402X88948</ref>

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

===Other Health Risks from Abortion===

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:<ref>''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).</ref> {{cquote|"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."}} A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates associated with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.<ref>D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).</ref>

In [[England]], the "Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece (Link no longer works)</ref> A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.<ref>Fergusson, D.M., et. al. (2006, January). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16405636 Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health]. ''The Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry'', 47(1), 16-24. PMID: 16405636.</ref> The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. <ref name=gilson>Gilson, T. (2006, February 24). [http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html Abortion and Mental Health]. ''Thinking Christian''.</ref>

The study concludes with the following statement:
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). <ref name=gilson />}}

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures." <ref>Throckmorton, W. (2006, January 20). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/20/20060120-091648-6456r/?page=all#pagebreak Abortion and Mental Health]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref>}}

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.<ref>J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, "[content.silaspartners.com/156/41045/156_41045_shadigian.1.pdf Long-Term Physical & Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence]," 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)</ref>

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year. Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.<ref>http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html (Link no longer works)</ref>

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.<ref>Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician "who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."</ref> In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse." The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>Ertelt, S. (2007, March 1). [http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html Woman Comatose for a Month After Botched Abortion Caused Center’s Closing]. ''LifeNews.com''.</ref>

==History==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]

Abortion was an extremely harsh '''''punishment''''' in the [[Old Testament]], imposed against those who have "rebelled against" God:

:"Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." (Hosea 9:16)

:"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

:"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref>Farr, A.D. (1980). [http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract The Marquis de Sade and induced abortion]. ''Journal of Medical Ethics'', 6, 7-10. doi:10.1136/jme.6.1.7</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref>Egnor, M. (2010, November 30). [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html P.Z. Myers on Abortion]. ''Evolution News and Views''.</ref>

=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>Hoffman, M.C. (2007, September 7). [Israeli Doctor Exposes Nazi Abortion Program http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html]. ''LifeSiteNews.com''.</ref>}}

After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>Wilke, J.C., Dr., et. al. (2006). [http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion? Why Can't We Love Them Both: Chapter 25, Euthanasia]. ''AbortionFacts.com''.</ref>
===Hall v. Lefkowitz===
[[Hall v. Lefkowitz]] was a court case on November 4, 1969<ref>"[http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19691335305FSupp1030_11150.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 Hall v. Lefkowitz]." 305 F.Supp. 1030 (1969). www.Leagle.com.</ref> during which Roy Lucas, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama Law School, and his self-founded James Madison Constitutional Law Institute, sued to challenge New York's abortion laws. A three-judge court presided which included famous judge Henry Friendly. Friendly wrote a draft opinion in the spring of 1970 declaring government had right to regulate abortion and protect a fetus, contrary to the later [[Roe v. Wade]] ruling. However, shortly thereafter the New York legislature amended state abortion law to allow abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and Hall's case was dismissed as unnecessary.<ref name=friendly>Randolph, A. Raymond. "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Randolph.pdf Before Roe v. Wade: Judge Friendly's Draft Abortion Opinion]." ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy''. Vol. 29.</ref> [[Hall v. Lefkowitz|Read some of Friendly's arguments]] made years before Roe v. Wade.

===NARAL's Lies About Back-Alley Abortions===
Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL's co-founders, described how he and the organization fabricated abortion statistics and used slogans to sway the public during the early days of Roe v. Wade.
{{cquote|I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical. We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.<ref name=nathanson />

=== Roe v. Wade ===
Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.<ref>''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth. Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].
===Present Day ===
In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.<ref name=abortionno>[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]. ''The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform].</ref> In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.<ref name=abortionno />

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion). Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened. For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have. [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders. In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.

==Reasons Given For Abortions==

[[File:AbortionReasons.jpg‎|thumb|400px| Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions]]

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a [[conservative]] or [[pro-life]] organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale [[abortion facilities]] in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortions, and identify the primary motivation. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.<ref name="agiSurvey">[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf Lawrence Finer, et al., "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", ''Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health'', September 2005]</ref>

The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion. For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound. Because a large part of their campaign funds are bankrolled by the abortion industry, liberals are frequent opponents to laws making available ultrasound treatment for patients not certain of the decision. Some physicians have been reported intimidating and pressuring patients to continue with an abortion after the patient has had a change of heart, either on the operating table or before surgery. One doctor, who was also employed as a spokesman for a prominent liberal pro-abortion think tank, reportedly forced a patient to undergo the procedure in order to fill a quota on insurance claims.

Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74%) and "I can't afford a baby now" (73%).<ref name="agiSurvey"/> Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby's health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.<ref name="agiSurvey"/>

Interestingly, only 14% indicated "[[husband]] or partner wants me to have an abortion" as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.<ref name="agiSurvey"/> This contrasts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort, and may indicate pressure to abort comes not so much from husbands now as other relationships.<ref name="reardon">[http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf David Reardon, "Forced Abortion in America", April 2010]</ref>

What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an [[ultrasound]].<ref>Lederman, ''Psychosocial Adaptation in Pregnancy'', 1984</ref><ref>"The Unwanted Pregnancy," ''Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology'', 1970, Cited in Gardner, ''Abortion: The Personal Dilemma'', 1972</ref><ref>Nichols and Humenick, ''Childbirth Education: Practice, Research, and Theory'', 1988</ref>

==Public Opinion==
Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup<ref name=gallupabortion/>), reveals that Americans are increasingly calling themselves Pro-Life (50%) and continue to say abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances (59%) such as rape (75%) and life of the mother (83%).
===Legal or Illegal===
According to Gallup's most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012), 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, and 39% believe it should be legal only in a few circumstances, a combined 59% that believe it should always or usually be illegal. 25% believe abortion should always be legal, and 13% believe that it should be legal in most circumstances, a combined 38% that believe it should always or usually be legal. 4% hold no opinion. The percentage of Americans which believe abortion should always or usually be illegal has varied from a low of 51% (Sept. 6-7, 1994, and Sept. 22-24, 1995) to a high of 62% (May 2-5, 2005). Gallup has polled the question 33 times since it began asking in 1994.<ref>''Gallup''. "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx/ Abortion]." Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?</ref>
===Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice===
Currently, 50% of Americans describe themselves as Pro-Life, 41% describe themselves as Pro-Choice, and 4% as Mixed/Neither, as of the most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012). The percentage of Americans describing themselves as Pro-Life has varied from a low of 33% (Sept. 3-6, 1995) to a high of 51% (May 7-10, 2009). Gallup has polled the question 41 times since it began asking in 1995.<ref name=gallupabortion/>
===By Trimester===
Gallup has asked the following question four times from 2003-2011: "Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?"<ref name=gallupabortion/>
====1st Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the first three months of pregnancy" (1st Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|62%
|align="center"|35%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|66%
|align="center"|29%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|65%
|align="center"|31%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|30%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}

====2nd Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the second three months of pregnancy" (2nd Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|24%
|align="center"|71%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|25%
|align="center"|68%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|24%
|align="center"|69%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|26%
|align="center"|65%
|align="center"|7%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
====3rd Trimester====
The following results were given for "In the last three months of pregnancy" (3rd Trimester):
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Polling Date
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| 2011, June 9-12
|align="center"|10%
|align="center"|86%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| 2003, January 10-12
|align="center"|10%
|align="center"|84%
|align="center"|4%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| 2000, March 30-April 2
|align="center"|8%
|align="center"|86%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| 1996, July 25-26
|align="center"|13%
|align="center"|82%
|align="center"|3%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
===By Circumstances===
According to the most recent Gallup poll (June 9-12, 2011), the following percentages of Americans say abortion should be legal under each circumstance:<ref name=gallupabortion/>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Circumstance
! Should be legal
! Should be illegal
! Depends (vol.)
! No opinion
|-
| When the woman's life is endangered
|align="center"|83%
|align="center"|13%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| When the woman's physical health is endangered
|align="center"|82%
|align="center"|15%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest
|align="center"|75%
|align="center"|22%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When the woman's mental health is endangered
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|35%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired
|align="center"|51%
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| When there is evidence the baby may be physically impaired
|align="center"|50%
|align="center"|45%
|align="center"|2%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child
|align="center"|36%
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|1%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}
===Pro-Life Initiatives===
According to Gallup's most recent poll (July 15-17, 2011) these proposals by the Pro-Life movement have received the following public support levels. Those marked "(2005)" were polled most recently on November 11-13, 2005. Those marked "(2003)" were last polled on January 10-12, 2003.<ref name=gallupabortion/>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
! Proposal
! Favor
! Oppose
! No opinion
|-
| (2003) A law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure
|align="center"|88%
|align="center"|11%
|align="center"|1%
|-
| A law requiring doctors inform patients about possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure
|align="center"|87%
|align="center"|11%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion
|align="center"|71%
|align="center"|27%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done
|align="center"|69%
|align="center"|28%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| A law making partial birth abortions illegal except for life of the mother
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|31%
|align="center"|5%
|-
| (2005) A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion
|align="center"|64%
|align="center"|34%
|align="center"|2%
|-
| A law requiring women seeking an abortion be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before
|align="center"|50%
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|3%
|-
| A law letting pharmacists and health providers opt out of medicine/surgical procedures resulting in abortion
|align="center"|46%
|align="center"|51%
|align="center"|4%
|-
| (2005) A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except to save the life of the mother
|align="center"|37%
|align="center"|61%
|align="center"|2%
|-
|}

==Abortion Alternatives==
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.<ref>[http://www.pregnancycenters.org/ OptionLine]. ''OptionLine.org''.</ref>

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.<ref>[http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=59 Family Life Services]. ''GodParentFoundation.org''.</ref>. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

==Planned Parenthood's Budget==
[[Planned Parenthood]] likes to claim that abortion accounts for just 3% of its services.<ref>[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm Planned Parenthood At a Glance]. ''Planned Parenthood''.</ref> However, an examination of its finances reveals that much if not most of its [[income]] relates to abortion.<ref>Barto, N. & Musgrave, M. (2012, July 29). [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2012/07/27/20120727womens-health-care.html Diverting Funds Betters Women's Health Care]. ''The Arizona Republic''.</ref> According to Planned Parenthood's 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of [[revenue]] from the following sources:<ref>[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf Annual Report 2007-2008]. Pg. 18. ''Planned Parenthood''.</ref>
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" align="center"
!
! Revenue (millions)
! %
|-
| Health Center Income
|align="center"|$374.7
|align="center"|36.1%
|-
| Govt. Grants & Services
|align="center"|$349.6
|align="center"|33.7%
|-
| Contributions & Requests
|align="center"|$244.9
|align="center"|23.6%
|-
| Other Operating Revenue
|align="center"|$68.9
|align="center"|6.6%
|-
|align="center"|'''Total Revenue'''
|align="center"|'''$1,038.1'''
|align="center"|'''100.0%'''
|-
|}
Planned Parenthood's reported $374.7 million of revenue from "Health Center Income". Given that it reported performing 305,130 abortions<ref>Page 9.</ref>, at an average cost of $450 (which lines up with statistics from the [[National Abortion Federation]]<ref>Dudley, S. (2003). [http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html Economics of Abortion]. ''National Abortion Federation''.</ref>), approximately $137.4 million of that $374.7 million Health Center Income came directly from performing abortions per analysis by [[Live Action]].<ref>Schmidt, D. (2010, May 14). [http://liveaction.org/blog/data-36-7-of-planned-parenthoods-health-center-income-is-from-abortions/ DATA: 36.7% of Planned Parenthood’s 'Health Center Income' is from Abortions]. ''Live Action''.</ref>

Since much of its money comes from Government Grants and Services or Contributions and Requests ($595.5 million) likely related to abortion, in addition to this $137.4 million of direct abortion revenue, it appears probable that as much as half to two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's revenue relates to abortion.

==Targeted Demographics==
===Women in China===
Forced abortion caused by China's One-Child Policy leads to deaths of mothers<ref>Bo Gu, B. (2012, June 14). [http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/14/12222877-gruesome-photos-put-spotlight-on-chinas-one-child-policy?lite Gruesome Photos Put Spotlight on China's One-Child Policy]. ''NBC News''.</ref>, as well as "gendercide".<ref>Hayes, A. (2012, April 30). [http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-30/asia/world_asia_china-forced-abortions_1_reggie-littlejohn-china-s-national-population-abortions?_s=PM:ASIA Activists allege forced abortions, sterilizations in China]. ''CNN''. Littlejohn, R. (2012, April 27). [http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/27/the-real-war-against-women-forced-abortion-gendercide/ The Real War Against Women: Forced Abortion, Gendercide]. ''LifeNews''.</ref> Because men tend to be higher wage earners, many families choose to abort their female children, opting instead for males.<ref>Ling, C. [http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/one-child-policy-china One-Child Policy Statistics]. ''AllGirlsAllowed.com''.</ref> Photos in 2012 of these forced abortions led to national outrage and calls to end China's One-Child Policy.<ref>Riviera, G. (2012, June 14). [http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-forced-abortions-child-rule-hits-women/story?id=16558428 How China's Forced Abortion Policy Hits Two Women]. ''ABC News''. Wong, E. (2012, July 22). [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/world/asia/pressure-to-repeal-chinas-one-child-law-is-growing.html?pagewanted=all Reports of Forced Abortions Fuel Push to End Chinese Law]. ''New York Times''. MacLeod, C. (2012, July 24). [http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-07-25/China-forced-abortions/56465974/1 Pressure mounts to stop China's forced abortions]. ''USA Today''. Sudworth, J. (2012, June 15). [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18453995 Chinese officials apologise to woman in forced abortion]. ''BBC News''.</ref> The sex-selective abortion policy has led to a huge gender disparity in China, 122.66 boys for every girl born, the highest ratio in the entire Asia Specific region<ref>(2010, March 9). [http://www.un.org.cn/cms/p/news/27/1346/content.html Gender Inequality Persists in China]. ''United Nations in China''. Ward, C. (2011, August 12). [http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-census-shows-growing-gender-gap/story?id=14288216 China's Preference for Boys Shows Growing Gender Gap]. ''ABC News''.</ref>, and resulted in 32 million single males.<ref>LaFraniere, S. (2009, April 10). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million]. ''The New York Times''. AFP (2010, January 12). [http://news.discovery.com/human/china-birth-rate-single-men.html China's Gender Gap Leaves Millions of Single Men]. ''Discovery News''.</ref> Logically this is a driving force behind human trafficking, prostitution, and the female slave trade which occurs near China.<ref>Weisenthal, J. (2010, April 12). [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-04-12/news/30049254_1_boys-and-girls-selective-abortions-village-hall Amazing First-Hand Account Of The Massive Gender Disparity In China]. ''Business Insider''.</ref>

===Minority Communities===
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html (Link no longer works.)</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)] ]]
"Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted." According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009</ref> At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':

"During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” <ref>Green, T.L. (2001, May 10). [http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans]. ''Concerned Women For America''.</ref>

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 were 42.7% of its total abortions. <ref name=ppracism>Murphy, L.K. (1994, June). [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT Planned Parenthood's Racism]. ''Life Research Institute''.</ref>. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.<ref name=ppracism />

According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html (Link no longer works.)</ref>

==Political Support of Abortion==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html (Link no longer works.)</ref> EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

* Providing health information to abortion patients;
* Requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and
* Providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.
===Pro-Life Democrats===
''See also:'' [[DFLA#2009-2010_Obamacare_Influence]]

While most Democrats support abortion, a growing number have been affiliating with [[Democrats For Life of America]], also known as Pro-Life Democrats. ObamaCare in 2009-2010 would have passed rapidly if not for their influence, since Democrats had a Supermajority allowing them to pass anything without a single Republican vote. However, 40 Pro-Life Democrats, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]] signed a letter refusing to let ObamaCare pass without reforms on the abortion issue, and fought the bill from June 2009 to March 2010, in an attempt to add the Stupak Amendment to the bill (which was added to the House bill but removed in the Senate despite attempts by Sen. [[Ben Nelson]] to add it there as well).
===Politics and Demographics===
''See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Global atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[liberal]]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Ultrasound images==
About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort.<ref>(2005, April 22). [http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/ Abortion Foes Use Ultrasound ; Focus on the Family Budgets Millions for Pricey Equipment]. ''RedOrbit''.</ref>

*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project|Conservapedia Pro-life Project]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]
*[[Abortion funding]]
*[[Abortion genocide]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]
*[[Abortionist]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from "More News"]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Fetus]]
*[[Harvard abortion study]]
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Margaret Sanger]]
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]

==External Links==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Abortion Abortion] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
* [http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]
* [http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com/ Pro Life on Campus]
* [http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
{{Abortion}}
{{Liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-03-28T22:20:48Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Occultations (talk) to last revision by Spielman

<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of [[Hans Bethe]] on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|inoculate]]s you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
:@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown [[#Aschlafly, could you give us... |above]] that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.
:@Aschlafly: What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])? Have thousands of students falsified their results to fit the current "dogma"? Do you have another theory which makes predictions that are different from those of Einstein's theory, but which is consistent with this experiment? And could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? The energy involved is to much for a chemical reaction...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that '''your clock''' is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::*This is neither an answer to the question "''What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])?''" nor to the ''"[[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]''".
::::::*We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:
::::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightgrey"
|
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
|}
::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Thanks Andy, that's pretty clear - mass is not being converted to energy, therefore E=mc2 is nonsense. I've got two kids who are being taught this stuff at school so I can now set them straight.
::::::Regards [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 17:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)

== High School Experiment ==

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:*Aschlafly, you are a [[Andrew Schlafly|former engineer]], therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!
:*Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...
:*And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? I always try to answer your questions - and the questions in the section above aren't that demanding...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

:::One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::*Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize
::::*The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:
:::::::*Aschlafly, how do you interpret the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] ?
:::::::*Could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? You only have to follow the steps...
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: ''"Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "''
::::::::::And please, could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:15, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does ''not'' "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The ''m'' is not gravitational mass. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
===An experiment performed at high-schools===
I think that experiments on [[Compton Scattering]] are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] could be performed by high school students with proper adult supervision. It would make a great science project. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:57, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Aschlafly, you created the article on [[Compton Scattering]], but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070602221148&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly similar very short articles], all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence [[E=mc²]]!
::This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.
::Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: ''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.''
::Please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] and show us that you actually know what you are talking about.
::Thank you, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is ''inertial mass'', not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found [http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf here]. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== Source of heat in a nuclear power station ==

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[light]]. ==

I changed this sentence to ''It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. ''. My reasons:
*The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical
*The older version showed a misunderstanding of [[proportionality]]: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above ''"Mass is not a function of the speed of light."'' Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Aschlafly, before your next reversion of my edit, please address my concerns above. And you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 16 January 2013 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]])! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.
:::A little bit annoyed, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:50, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::''science is not by liberal consensus'': not an answer to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], again. Are you stalling? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:The truth, it seems, is what ''you'' define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

== Andrew Schlafly's comments ==

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:
{|class="wikitable"
!1
|Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
|-
!2
|It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!3
|Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!4
|JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!5
|The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!6
|The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!7
|The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!8
|The problem is that '''E=m2''' does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!9
|No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!10
|AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!11
|It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!12
|The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!13
|The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!14
|You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!15
|The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!16
|Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!17
|Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!18
|You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!19
|No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!20
|But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
|-
!21
|(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!22
|The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!23
|"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!24
|Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!25
|Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!26
|The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!27
|This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!28
|A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!29
|That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!30
|The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!31
|Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!32
|Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!33
|If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!34
|It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.
|-
!35
|Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
|-
!36
|The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!37
|It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!38
|We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!39
|It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!40
|No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!41
|Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!42
|Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!43
|August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!44
|The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!45
|The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!46
|Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!47
|Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|}

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in '''24''' you say ''Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations.'', while in '''27''' we read ''This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.'' and in '''42''' ''there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation. ''

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a ''mathematical theory'' other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like '''39''': ''It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. '' E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

'''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.'''

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:No, there has been no [[unified field theory]] discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an [[Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness|Open mind]], so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

::::The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you ''think'' it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "''Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared''". Indeed. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them.'' No, it isn't. If you take a look at the sections above, you will see that you generally get responses. I'm afraid we are missing substantial answers from you, like to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
:::::''Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???'' That's not what ''E=mc²'' is about, in the same way that ''A=πr²'' isn't about unifying area and π
:::::If you don't start to do actual physics, your list of answers just becomes a parade of ignorance. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:Yes. Just as a mass of 1 kg has kinetic energy of one half times its velocity squared, so it has mass energy of c2.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:No - as you messed up the units. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::The mass energy in 1 kg is <math>1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}</math> (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:36, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::: You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::::::Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of <math>9 \times 10^{16}J</math> - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits <math>3.8 \times 10^{26}W</math> this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.
::::::But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:
::::::*In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of <math>3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg </math> is transformed into an energy of <math>2,755 \times 10^{-12}J</math>
::::::*In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².
::::::This is about measurement, not politics. And please, Andrew, answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: those questions may be difficult for a lawyer, but nor for an engineer. So, I'd like the engineer in you to answer the questions, not the lawyer to give another political statement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:11, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the [[Bible]]. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the [[Bible]] earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

::Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:::*The underlying point is that '''you are not doing science but rhetorics'''. I get the impression that you are not able to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: have you forgotten everything you learned to become an engineer?
:::*''[it] does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Don't you even understand [[proportionality]]?
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::P.S.: I just created [[proportionality]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)

=== Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above ===
Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that [[E=mc²]] is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: ''drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - keep an open mind! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke, the greatest physicist of the 20th century ==

Andrew, such over-the-top statements just help to erode your credibility when it comes to physics. I understand that you won't accept [[Albert Einstein]] - the common choice - for this title. But [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Max Planck]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Lise Meitner]], [[Erwin Schrödinger]], [[Richard Feynman]] were at least his equals! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013
::If you prefer experimentalists, what's about [[Edward Teller]], [[Robert Oppenheimer]], [[Stanislaw Ulam]] or [[Enrico Fermi]]? I don't claim that any of those is the ''greatest physicist of the 20th century'', but they are not less great than [[Robert Dicke]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:24, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::You're clearly not very familiar with the way the field of physics actually works. The field is divided into theorists and experimenters. Theorists try to figure out how everything should be working, and come up with (surprise) theories about what those might be. In some cases, they take data sets created by those folks that have been experimenting and try to figure out why they contain the data they have (which is typically not the data that was expected). The fact that they don't have much in the way of experimental accomplishments doesn't really much matter because ''that isn't their job''. When they do finish a theory of something, some intrepid experimenter out there will pick it up and try to either prove or disprove that theory via experiment. This cycle continues thus pretty much perpetually. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 21:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)
::Is there any evidence anywhere (please, show me a link to an article somewhere - news, actual science, whatever - that shows that you didn't just make this up) that Dicke was denied a Noble Prize just because he didn't accept relativity? It took quite a while for physicists to come around to the idea of relativity, just as it took time for the reality of quantum mechanics to sink in. Meanwhile empirical evidence was mounting and it sort of became hard to deny after taking a look at the real data. I'm not too familiar with this Dicke figure (given that I'm an undergrad in physics, that makes me question whether he was the greatest of his century), but it may very well be that he just never had a chance to really sit down and examine the data. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 17:10, 30 January 2013 (EST)

== Nuclear Energy ==

In the interest of consistency, I have removed a section of the [[nuclear energy]] article to bring it in line with this article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:Perhaps before gutting other articles, Andrew Schlafly could try to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]. Or perhaps this one, concerning nuclear fusion and fission:
::'''An neutron <math>{}^1_0n</math> has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton <math>{}^1_1p</math> has a mass of 1.007276466 amu, an electron has a mass of 0.000548580 amu. Therefore 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons have a combined mass of 236.9589872 amu. But an atom of <math>{}^{235}_{92}U</math> - consisting of 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons has a mass of 235.0439299. Does a liberal conspiracy hide roughly 1.915 amu of any atom of this isotope?
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:14, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::I will try one last time to explain this. Suppose that blowing up an atomic bomb with 1 lb of Uranium releases x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 2 lbs of Uranium releases 2x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 3 lbs of Uranium releases 3x amount of energy. Could we then conclude that the energy released by the atomic bomb was proportional to its mass? (If we invented a new unit of measuring energy "the Wschact" where one Wschact equaled the amount of energy released by converting one kg of uranium into energy), the equation would be: E (in Wschact units) = m (mass in kg)
::: The proportionality constant would be 1 (Wschact per kg).
::: Is it possible that (for some liberal claptrap reason) we could define the metric system of energy units in a way that the proportionality constant was set equal to a number that equals the speed of light squared? But because energy is measured in Joules, we have E =mc2, where c2 converts between Wschacts and Joules.
:::Any kid would agree that if you double the size of a bomb, the explosion would be twice as powerful. So this is a very intuitive equation. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:43, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Editing the Article ==

Andrew Schlafly, I'd appreciate if you'd abstain from editing this article: you haven't answered any questions on the underlying physics and mathematics (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]), and therefore haven't shown any understanding of the subject. Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:18, 21 January 2013 (EST)

== Simple question ==

This line appears in the introduction: "... ''light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis''". So my question to Mr. Schlafly is this: does the light in this statement refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you are willing to expound on your answer, it would be appreciated. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

== This article has a number of mistakes ==

For example, light isn't the same as energy. Light contains energy but so does '''oil'''.

Also mass, acceleration and force are all connected by Newton's laws, F=ma. So,
{{cquote|Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces,}} doesn't make sense because mass and forces are connected through that equation.

I'd correct it but, unlike the spirit of a wiki, this page is uneditable. It simply gets reverted. Thanks. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 16:29, 25 January 2013 (EST)

== personal essay shouldn't be linked from encyc. article ==

This rule seems to be made up on the spot... Fact is that numerous encyclopedic articles at Conservapedia link to "personal essays": see [[Atheism]] (linking to [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]), [[Evolution]] (linking to [[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]), [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] (linking to [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]), [[Jesus Christ]] (linking to [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] and [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), [[Torah]] (linking to [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), etc.

So there seems to be no reason not to link to [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] - especially as the article [[E=mc²]] has many characterizations of an essay itself. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:48, 27 January 2013 (EST)
:I think you have made some very good points AugustO, but its time to move on. Accept the fact that the article will not be changing and you will have a happier time of it. Its time to let the readers decider for themselves whether they accept Mr Schlafly's unconventional approach or not. You are beginning to get repetitive and I suspect there are some admins who are out to get you. Don't give them the satisfaction. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

== Problems with the newest edit.. ==

*''The popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public.'' It's perhaps the most recognizable formula today. But I doubt that this was the result of one television series.
*''But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. '' You keep using this word (unified). I don't think that it means what you think it means. Having mass, energy and the speed of light all appearing in one single equation doesn't necessarily unify these concepts!
*''The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. '' This is your position, Andrew Schlafly. Nearly all physicists think different - even though they fail to convince you! Therefore it should be made clear that this is the position of critics of the theory...
*''Undeterred, [[liberal]] [[PBS]] insists that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].'' It's not just PBS, it's virtually all physicists. At the moment, the source is taken from PBS, I'll add other sources which will show that nearly all physicists join in the conspiracy to promote [[E=mc²]]. (like http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2008/research-digest/student-papers/einstein/einstein2019s-theory-of-relativity-implications-beyond-science)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]! And you have added nothing of physical or mathematical substance to the article on the [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]! Could you please do so? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:Andrew Schlafly, please address these points before reverting to an inferior version of the article! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:54, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it==
This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.

You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation [http://xkcd.com/552/ here].

You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he
#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
#criticized or refuted relativity,
#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this
are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.'' (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.

You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.

You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.

You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:
*E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.
*E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.
*Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.

Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.

The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10-25 kg. I hope you accept this.

The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10-25 kg.

The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10-27 kg.

When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10-25 kg.

These don't add up. 8.682702295×10-30 kg were lost. OK?

Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10-13 Joules.

The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×1016 meters squared per second squared.

The square root of that is 2.998×108 meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.

This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.

That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.

So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.

Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—''Spacetime Physics'' by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:It is human to become so emotionally invested in a position, that there is no room left for logic or reasoning. A strong organization has ways to handle such situations. There are always at least two viewpoints to every dispute, and it always helps to try to invest some time into trying to understand both viewpoints. I agree with SamHB that "Enough is enough." A lot of people who care about CP have spent a lot of time reading this talk page and editing the article. If we all want CP to thrive and progress, we need to work together to find a way forward. Perhaps we could draw three number out of a hat at random and then count down the alphabetical list of editors to randomly select a committee to review this page. (If number 4 was drawn, the 4th editor on the list would be selected.) Everyone could make a pitch to the Committee, they would edit the page, and we would stop talking past each other. If anyone has a better way forward, please propose one. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:47, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] - as well as the experiments at the [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html MIT in 2005] - have shown that the [[Direct proportionality|constant of proportionality]] is c². And that's what all the mathematical derivations for special cases show, too: here is a neat trick for an engineer - develop mc² as a Taylor series (using the relativistic mass) and look closely at the first terms. That wouldn't work with c3/2
:::BTW: You are always asking questions, awaiting answers - why are you not answering to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:06, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Andy, Isaac Newton would agree that the exponent would have to be 2 if it's anything. F=ma. Energy is defined as the force times distance, so the units of energy have to be mass times distance squared over time squared. The exponent is fixed because of the definitions of energy and acceleration in classical Newtonian physics. Of course this says nothing about the magnitudes of E, m or v but it does say any other exponent violates Newton's world. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 19:52, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::No one person has a monopoly on the truth. No one person has the definitive Bible interpretation. So far, I have not seen any Biblical basis for Andy's views on E=mc2. Nor, have I seen any scientific basis for Andy's views. While I respect Andy a great deal, he seems to have unique views on the interpretation of this equation. So, it would be best if everyone could agree to move the resolution of this issue into dispassionate hands. CP editors would feel more confident in the strength of the website's leadership, and our users would gain more trust in CP's contents. Many CP editors see no conflict between E=mc2 and their religious views. Many CP editors see a big difference between the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. Everyone knows that the exponent must be 2 in order for the units to come out right. Many, many sources say that E=mc2 is used to design atom bombs and that relativistic effects were taken into account in the design of the GPS system. The United States government even issued a postage stamp featuring the equation. Can we please resolve this in a manner that will reflect well on both CP and its leadership? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:36, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::Wschact I feel that this article is at an impasse. If Mr. Schlafly was presenting an alternative theory that was internally consistent, matched all empirical observations, and could be shown to be held by another living soul... then we could work out a compromise article that was informative to the reader. Instead this article consists of factual information that has been liberally seasoned with Andy's editorial commentary and unsubstantiated claims. This has the effect of making it read like a someone with a split-personality wrote it. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Too right everyone, this article (in fact, this whole website) is nothing more than one person's point of view. And it makes the whole website look silly [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1]. That's why I suggest moving on to a different encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia or a different conservative one. There are plenty conservative ones that are created for the sole reason that Mc. Schlafly is making this his own. I say we all abandon him. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::::It may be tempting to just ignore this article from now on and accept that it will never be corrected because of Mr. Schlafly's inflexibility. But Conservapedia is not just any blog, it is supposedly an educational resource for students. It is irresponsible and shameful to present unsubstantiated opinions as scientific fact in such a forum. Let's hope/pray that Mr. Schlafly can see this from all of the constructive criticisms and comments on this talk page. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::CP is taking a [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1 serious reputational hit] from this article. Back in November [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 I edited the article to reflect both viewpoints but was reverted.] Further requests for guidance from Andy have been ignored. I pray that some home-schooled student will not rely upon this article to write a college admission essay to his or her detriment. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:20, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::Since all the editors participating in this discussion except one are in agreement, why not edit the article and revert and changes made by the dissenting voice? That's basically what's been happening to this point, except in reverse. Its tyranny by a minority and certainly does not represent either the way that a nominal democracy should work or, indeed, how the scientific method works. I take some small solace from the knowledge that the truth itself cares not what this article says and instead continues to be true regardless of Andy's opinions. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 22:19, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::You make the mistake of assuming that this is a democracy. It is a meritocracy, which means that the view with the most merit is accepted. The most meritorious user here is Andy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::We need a way to determine "the best of the public." [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::"He who pays the piper . . ." I do sympathise with you and AugustO, but I think its time to move on. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::Sorry, not good enough. ''Merit'' is all good and well, but it isn't a substitution for ''competence''. You can earn merits in one field, and still be incompetent in another. IMO it is the right thing to try to help a otherwise meritorious person not to look like a rambling fool in an area where he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:55, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::Let's be absolutely clear here. Are you saying that Aschlafly is "incompetent", that he "look(s) like a rambling fool", and that he is "overstep(ping)" the boundaries of his knowledge? If the answers are "yes, yes, and yes", then please say what you mean directly! Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 08:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::'' Beating around the bush is a liberal trait.'' As is incivility. Yes, I'm disappointed by the current state of the article, yes, I'd say that the article is kept in its current state not because of mathematical or physical arguments, but because of the lack of those. Yes, I sometimes get crestfallen by the lack of scientific insight, but no, I wouldn't formulate my frustration the way you want me to do it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Then who exactly is "incompetent"? Who "look(s) like a rambling fool"? Who is guilty of "incivility"? Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:02, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::::*Again, I phrase my criticism as poignant as possible in a civil environment. After all, there should be a discussion and not a shouting match.
::::::::::::::::*''Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly?'' I don't know - perhaps you should ask a liberal? Or were you just calling me a liberal in a very indirect way? You wouldn't do something so intricate, would you?
::::::::::::::::Conclusion: Please don't stir the pot - the situation is volatile enough.
::::::::::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:40, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] ==

I made the following edit at [[Conservapedia proven wrong]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of Prognostication
!''Conservapedia'' Prediction
!Actual Result
! ''Conservapedia'''s Response
!Date of Result
|-
|March 25, 2012
|''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=next&oldid=970256 E=mc² is liberal claptrap]''
|The [[E=mc²|same page]] lists experiments which verify the formula and other pages on Conservapedia show how this formula is used in reality ([[Compton Scattering]], [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]].) Especially [[Talk:E=mc²]] shows that the statement ''E=mc² is liberal claptrap'' is a conviction only held by Andrew Schlafly, for which no mathematical or physical reason is given.
|
|
|}
This got reverted by Andrew Schlafly, stating ''an entry like this is not the place for argument - E=mc2 claim reverted''. Again, no physical or mathematical reason was given. Andrew, you have still not answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], you have not shown any understanding of the physics or mathematics involved - though you have had many opportunities to do so (see, e.g., [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] and [[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]). For all practical purposes, you - and by extension Conservapedia - have been proven to be wrong.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:48, 8 February 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

''For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''

Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

::So it ''is'' only your personal opinion, rooted in your belief that you are the one to know who should and should not be awarded the Nobel Prize. Yes, Robert Dicke was scooped in the experimental detection of background radiation for which Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were awarded half the prize in 1978, but unless you have at least some proof that this was related to his opinion on ''general relativity'' (not special relativity, here he agreed with Einstein), you can only say something like: ''For example, '''''some speculate''''' that [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''
::BTW: I personally think that it would have been apt if Robert Dicke shared the prize with Penzias and Wilson for this important test of the Big Bang model of the universe.
::And could you please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? It is nice that you address any political or historical point raised here on this talk-page, but you should answer to the physical and mathematical questions, too: those are the important ones... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:28, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:::About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation]
:::And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)

== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==

Andrew Schlafly, you reverted some edits, claiming that you ''restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths''. "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" doesn't become a truth just because you are repeating it! I'll take you through some of the edits - again - and I hope that you won't make this kind of silly reversion again.

{|class="wikitable"
!Andrew Schlafly
!Rest of the World
!Comment
|-
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|The formula is called the mass-energy-equivalence - this is reflected by the version on the right.
|-
|
|there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications
|Yes, there are: some of those can be found later in the article
|-
|For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]]
|
|Any source for this statement? No. It's a conspiracy, so the statement is true because there is no proof for it! Anyway, Robert Dicke only had problems with the '''general theory''', and not with this formula.
|-
|Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].
|Entering the phrase: "''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap''" into commonly-used search engines, reveals that an overwhelming majority of the internet community considers Conservapedia's claims (more accurately described as, Andy Schlafly's unsubstantiated assertions) to be a subject fit for ridicule<ref>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/274938_Conservapedia-_E=MC2_Is_Liber</ref><ref>http://www.christianforums.com/t7643473/</ref><ref>http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87194</ref><ref>http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/728843-e-mc%B2-liberal-claptrap.html</ref><ref>http://www.computernewbie.info/wheatdogg/2012/04/29/fisking-conservapedia-is-emc2-really-liberal-claptrap/</ref><ref>http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/maximum-retardation-alert/</ref><ref>http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/off-his-meds/</ref>.
|Andrew, you seem to think that this follows from the sentences above - but it doesn't. It's not even an opinion you have, it's a kind of gut-feeling.
|-
|But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.
|
|That has nothing to do with the formula.
|-
|Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].
|At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).
|That's why I added quotes from the physics department at the MIT - hardly a second-tier college. You are ignoring inconvenient facts to make a misleading statement!
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:03, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:I think the table fairly summarizes the differences. I have still yet to see any Biblical argument against E=mc2. The only controversial application of E=mc2 is in nuclear energy and atomic bombs. While the Ten Commandments teach that "Thou shall not kill" and dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused horrific suffering, most conservatives and Christians believe that the war was shortened and many lives were saved. They would say that the discovery of nuclear technology just in time was God inspired. If Germany or Russia developed the bomb before the United States, the world would be a dictatorship by now. When Einstein approach FDR about starting a Manhattan Project, FDR could have said that the idea was "liberal claptrap" and refused to devote scarce resources to building atomic bombs. Instead, he authorized a massive expedited program. Most conservatives are glad that he did, and have supported nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants ever since.

:The theory of special relativity is different from general relativity. E=mc2 is a part of special relativity but is worth its own separate article. Whatever feelings Andy (or anyone else) has about general relativity should be kept out of this article. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::: Well you could start with [http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760 this book] by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::::Perhaps Mr. Schlafly would be comfortable with the original interpretation (which I'll write slightly differently to make my point):
::::<math>\Delta m = \frac{\Delta E}{c^2}</math>
::::which states only that a system's mass will change by a small amount when it releases or absorbs energy. It's still E=mc2; the difference is the definition of m and E. For example, it describes the rather difficult-to-ignore fact that a 4He nucleus weighs less than the two deuterons from which it was formed. This concept is easier to prove than the more general statement of mass-energy equivalence. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

:::::''Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?'' - Andrew Schlafly, you could start with Richard Feynman's ''Lectures on Physics'', Book 1, 15-9 "''Equivalence of mass and energy''", which closes with the words
{{cquote|''This theory of equivalence of mass and energy has been beautifully verified by experiments in which matter is annihilated - converted totally to energy: An electron and a positron come together at rest, each with a rest mass <math>m_0</math>. When they come together they disintegrate and two gamma rays emerge, each with the measured energy of <math>m_0c^2</math>. This experiment furnishes a direct determination of the energy associated with the existence of the rest mass of a particle''|||Richard Feynman}}
:::::But you can take any textbook covering the special theory of relativity... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:43, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== References ==
<references/>

== too many reversions needed to include key statements; can suggest edits on talk page ==

Very well: I suggest that this version is restored: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&oldid=1034198 revision 1034198]. Reason: it has been shown above that the reversions done by Andrew Schlafly are unscientific. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:33, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:Give it a rest. For your sake as well as everyone else. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:48, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::What good would this do for this article? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:57, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::None whatsoever. But then your complaining about it won't do anything either. Besides, no-one who wants to read about theoretical physics will read this article for its content. (Though they may find other reasons to look at it). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::No, those who know something about physics just will have a good laugh. The problem are the readers who don't know much yet. It is probably the most famous formula in physics, so pupils may read this article: Can you imagine a pupil using this material for a home-work? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:05, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Any pupil that used this for homework would get an F, obviously. I wouldn't worry about young kids using this page. This formula is not used in school, and anyone who has any need to use it at university would not come here. The main point though is that Andy has made it perfectly clear that there will be no changes to the article and that is the end of it. You quoted the Anderson story of the Emperor's new clothes. Allow me to quote a lesson from the ''Pied Piper of Hamelin'': "He who pays the piper calls the tune". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:27, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::::::That is just not how a meritocracy works... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, your refusal to address any question of mathematical or physical substance - like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - makes this proposal to ''"suggest edits on talk page"'' farcical. I repeat what I stated on your talk-page:
:''Your ''might makes right'' approach isn't becoming for the article on [[E=mc²]]! You are reminding me of the eponymous character in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", only that in this version everyone from the very beginning is telling the emperor that he is naked, but he insists on parading through the streets nonetheless! ''
You are asking [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1029966&oldid=1029962 question] after [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1034125&oldid=1034090 question], but you are ignoring the answers, you don't answer substantial questions yourself and you failed to show that you know the mathematics or physics involved. You are acting like a lawyer in a room of scientists, following the old saying:
:''"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."''
You are pounding the table a lot! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

What is our goal? If everyone can show some diplomacy we can have a win-win situation. I know one editor here wants to score "points" against what he views as the liberal scientific establishment. I am unclear as to why the E=mc² article is an appropriate place for this. The downside to the article in its current form is that it is widely ridiculed and undercuts CP's credibility regarding many well-written articles. I think that AugustO had a better approach. He included some of the religious views as a separate paragraph, but also had a paragraph that said that E=mc² fits the experimental data. Now that the article has been protected from editing, I would be interested in hearing how Andy proposes to develop a new version that has less opinion and more valuable information. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:49, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:A bit of friendly advice AugustO... You know how a certain editor on CP answers every instance of comment or criticism with a debate challenge over the [[15 questions nobody cares about]]? Well, I'm sorry to say, you're starting to sound like that with the whole [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] thing. Andy's never going to answer your (or anyone else's) question on this topic. Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Andy also knows, that the entire internet knows, that Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yet, it hasn't deterred him in the least. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why that is so? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:58, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::Thank you for this advice: I admit this ''ceterum censeo'' can sound annoying. I'd beg to differ in one regard: those ''15 questions'' have been answered again and again, while my [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] have been ignored... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:38, 12 February 2013 (EST)

'''Proposed solution:''' (1) Andy unprotects the article and allows AugustO to edit it without Andy's further reverting. (2) We include a "See also" section at the bottom of the article that links to one or more debate pages. The debate pages could cover why Conservatives favor a nuclear arsenal and the peaceful use of nuclear energy to make electricity while liberals do not. (3) Whatever reservations Andy has about the tensions between the Bible and the general theory of relativity is confined just to the [[General theory of relativity]] article and not spread to unrelated physics articles. This would allow everyone to get what they want. If someone on the Internet reads about CP and decides to visit the E=mc² article to see for himself, he will see that the criticisms are false. The E=mc² article will be accurate, and the concerns about general relativity will be expressed in the relevant place. How about it? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:32, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:@Wschact - You seem to gravitate towards solutions that would require Andy to relinquish editorial control over his own <s>blog</s> encyclopedia. Most of us know that's never going to happen. Your modest proposal amounts to "Let's lock Andy in his playpen so people will take CP seriously again". Good luck with that. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

=== "Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die" ===

When I [[Talk:idou|discussed the translation]] of [[idou|ἰδοὺ]] in the Conservapedia Bible Project, I was the first time confronted with an absolute inadequate stile of argument: instead of scholarly sources, spurious claims on google counts were made, statements were made out of thin air, and the subject was kicked down the road by announcing answers which never came. In the end, Andrew Schlafly just stopped addressing the topic.

I observe something similar with the article on [[E=mc²]] - only that the points made are even worse: ''The liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering.'' That makes [[E=mc²]] wrong how? Andrew Schlafly hasn't shown the slightest understanding of the mathematics or physics involved, and missed every opportunity [[Talk:E=mc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|to do so.]]

The article has become detrimental to Conservapedia: it is a monument of Andrew Schlafly's ignorance on this matter. If we (all the other editors interested in this subject) aren't allowed to align this article with reality, the next best thing would be to delete it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:13, 13 February 2013 (EST)
:If the people who check out the criticisms find a correct article, CP will gain credibility. But if they find that the article was deleted, they will be left to their own imaginations as to why the article was pulled. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:20, 13 February 2013 (EST)
===New consensus===
Does anyone object to AugustO's version? It acknowledges the "controversy" but also states the facts. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:44, 15 February 2013 (EST)
::Obviously I agree with [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] ... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 15 February 2013 (EST)
:::Since the page has been unlocked and nobody objected, why don't you edit it to reflect the new consensus? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:49, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a 4He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Of course, you are correct that E=mc2 applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)
*I hadn't realized that the page wasn't protected any longer. Now I performed the edit "to reflect the new consensus".
*E=mc² seems to be applicable to any situation - though it is only derived for special cases. Not only can mass be transformed to energy, energy itself shows the characteristics of mass, best demonstrated by photons in a gravitational field.
*We can only calculate but not measure the difference of mass before and after a TNT explosion - or the detonation of an atomic bomb: the mass differences are so tiny while the reactions are so powerful. But I don't think that this is a problem, we just have to look for more suitable examples. The same is true for quantum mechanics: we can apply the uncertainty principle to a speeding car, but it will have no practical consequences...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)

== Another kind of nonsense: [[User:Gryfin]]'s contribution ==

Dear Gryfin, it doesn't matter that the units are arbitrary - as long as they are used consistently: in the MKS system, you have on the right hand side [[meter]]s, [[kilogram]] and [[second]]s, and on the left hand side [[Joule]], an unit which is ''derived'' from meters, kilogram and seconds:

<math>1 Joule = 1 kg \frac{1 m^2}{1 sec^2}</math>

But you can use any other system - as long as the unit for force is derived as [Force] = [mass] × [length] / [time]² and therefore, the unit of work is [Work] = [Force] × [length] = [mass] × [length]² / [time]² (here, [entity] indicates the unit used to measure the entity).

Only if you violate this consistency, you have to introduce conversion factors - which can be easily derived: most (American) introductory textbooks on physics talk about such necessary conversions on the first pages.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:16, 27 February 2013 (EST)

== Censorship is not the way of the future ==

Andrew Schlafly, as a teacher you should know that correcting mistakes is not a form a censorship! Do I really have to remind you of the first Commandment of Conservapedia:
::'''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.'''
Your edits to the article are neither true not verifiable, as you have demonstrated here on the talk page: you have never given a cconvincing mathematical or physical argument for you position. May I remind you of [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? Those are not the only questions you have dodged - every time a discussion on this talk-page isn't about politics, but hard science, you chose to ignore it! Frankly, I came to the conclusion that you are not able to answer such basic questions on physics - and therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:27, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:Yikes AugustO, enough is enough surely. You have to know by now that the article will never change and yet you keep on and on. Rest assured that virtually everyone except Andy agrees with you and let that be enough. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:44, 27 February 2013 (EST)
::Andrew Schlafly, you undid my edit to [[E=mc²]], claiming that you were ''restoring information''. But even you must have seen that the restored section titled '''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2Doesn’t Compute]''' is utter nonsense. It states:
::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:grey"
|''[http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. '''Because random values cannot validate the tangible''', the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/ E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute] by [http://www.jonathangrey.co.uk/emc2-doesnt-compute/Jonathan Grey]:
|}
::The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see [[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Another kind of nonsense: User:Gryfin's contribution|here]]), and the whole section is an attempt on link-farming.

::As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)
This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc2 article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

===Choosing ignorance over knowledge===

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to [[Talk:E=mc²]] since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to [[E=mc²]]. Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by ''fiat'', thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under '''Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die'''.

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

== Reply from Gryfin to AugustO in regard to “another kind of nonsense” ==

Dear [[AugustO]], thank you for your comment.

Your comment is effectively saying E=mc2 is a dimensional consistent equation. A dimensional consistent equation is when the physical law is independent of the units used to measure the physical variables. Which E=mc2 is not. At the equations essence, E=mc2 is declaring the physical variable (energy) is quantified by and so dependent on the units inputted. Hence, E=mc2 is not a dimensional consistent equation.

You also say, as long as the unit for force is derived as Force = mass × length / time2 you can use any other system. To determine if you are correct in your statement, calculate using metric and imperial systems the energy contained in 0.453kg and a pound (lb). I lay you a wager. If the answers gives an identical amount of energy for the same amount of mass I’ll say I’m wrong. But if the answers are not identical, reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013.

You also say; a correlation exists between meters, kilograms, seconds and Joules. The relationship between the four units is a manmade relationship determined after the units were created. This means the relationship is arbitrary in nature and so can’t define the tangible of nature.

The unit of a second had its origins in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians used a counting system based on 60. The system derived from counting the segments on each finger using their thumb, hence 12 hours. The 12 was multiplied by the five digits on their other hand, giving 60. The Babylonians had a 12 hour clock, only measuring the daylight hours from dawn to dusk. A 12 hour clock lasting one day will have a light speed figure of 599,584 km per second, twice its current figure.

The next phase in the clocks development was done by the Egyptians. They adopted the Babylonian clock. With the stars playing a major part in Egyptian life, they needed to account for the night time. The Egyptians modified the Babylonian clock by added another 12 hours. The 24 hour clock established the length of our second and light speed at 299,792 km per second.

The Greeks and Romans used a counting system based on 10. But instead of devising a clock of 10 hours divided by 100 minutes by 100 seconds, they simply embraced the Egyptian 24 hour clock. A 10 hour clock will have a light speed figure of 259,020 km per second

A base 16 numbering system can divide down to one (16, 8, 4, 2, 1), making it a superior system to 10 or 12. If seconds, minutes, hours was established on a base 16 numbering system, light speed will be 395,234 km per second.

The length of our second is only one of countless lengths we could have had, each giving a different figure to the speed of light. The length of our second is only by chance, and so is our light speed figure.

The values allocated to meters and kilograms were assigned by Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist who designed the metric system in the 18th century. Lavoisier determined the length of a meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole at sea level. A litre is one thousandth of a cubic meter of water. A kilogram is the weight of a litre of water.

Lavoisier initially contemplated on using the equator as the base for the meter. However, because of political instability in some countries the equator runs through. He decided not to use it. But if had, the equator divided by ten million would make the meter four times its current value. This will give light speed a figure of 74,948,114.5 meters per second, a quarter of the current value. But in contradiction, a meter four times its length will make the kilogram 64 times greater than its current weight because it is based on a thousandth of a squared meter (43).

The values attributed to units of measurement were chosen for convenience, and each one could have been one of countless values with countless permutations between them. Thus, the correlation between them is manmade and not a natural correlation; unlike the correlation between energy and mass.

Until the day when humans have knowledge to determine the energy of mass and establish the correlation between them, any equation to determine the correlation is abstract. Or are you claiming, the units of measurement we use today were chosen, against incalculable odds, exactly correct and can define the tangible energy of mass. In which case, it's lucky the ancient Babylonians counted the 12 segments on their fingers and not their 10 fingers.

I expected the scientific community to reject my controversial statement on E=mc2 because, although it's correct, it doesn’t fit in with their theories. But I thought Conservapedia, which doesn’t squirm from speaking its mind, would give my statement sanctuary.

Please reinstate my article I posted on the 27th Feb 2013. It is correct and not as you say, '''“another kind of nonsense”'''

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 06 2013

I'd like to see your calculations. The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

1 ft/lb is 1.3558 joules

The speed of light is 984,000,000 ft/sec, squared is 967,000,000,000,000,000, divided by the acceleration of gravity to get energy is 30,000,000,000,000,000 ft-lb.

The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/sec. squared is 90,000,000,000,000,000. divided by kg/lb is 40,700,000,000,000,000. Divided by 1.3588 is 30,000,000,000,000,000.

But, hey, perhaps you forgot about the 32? [[User:CUlator|CUlator]] 11:01, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Dear [[CUlator]]

Thank you for your comment.

The part of the discussion you are obviously referring to is, computing the same quantity of mass using two different systems, imperial and metric, through E=mc2.

You have not done this. You only divided one constant by another (speed of light & acceleration of gravity). On the metric side of your example you convert the squared light speed (which is the same in both systems because it's the distance light travels in a second squared), to the imperial system before converting ft/lb to Joules. You did not use E=mc2 to calculate equal quantities of mass using metric and imperial systems.

The discussion is about E=mc2 and arbitrary systems of measurement with no correlation. Even though calculating different systems through E=mc2was a side issue to the discussion. I maintain that when using E=mc2 to compute equal amounts (0.453kg and a pound (lb)) using the imperial and metric systems. The answers will not be the same. The answers will be in calories and Joules. Then convert calories to Joules.

But most importantly, you ignored the thrust of the discussion, which is: Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible. On one side of the equation is Energy, which has a precise amount per given mass. On the other side of the equation are manmade units of measurement with no relationship to Energy contained within mass. When humans decided what value to assign to a Joules, they assigned the amount of energy used when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre. This has no relationship to Energy contained within mass. Until the twentieth century, burning was used to release energy from mass. This is only a tiny percentage of the potential energy. With fission in twentieth century a lot more energy per mass was released, but still only a percentage. In the future, probably hundreds of years, even more energy will be released using methods undreamt of at present. The Energy per mass and if different types of energy co-exist within mass is unknown and will remain unknown for many years! So how can an equation using arbitrary units of measurement quantify the unknown?

I look forward to your reply

[[User:Gryfin|Gryfin]] March 11 2013
:User:Gryfin is ignoring the constant refinements made to the definitions of the SI units. In 1983, the definition of a meter was changed to "The distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second". Given that the experiments were conducted in SI units and Energy is measured in Joules, the proportionality constant determined by those measurements works out to be the speed of light (in SI units) squared. This has nothing to do with light or relating the speed of light to mass or to the Book of Genesis. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::When I left the comment above, I had not realized that other people had responded to Gryfin, but that their responses were deleted. You can check the history of this page for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AE%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1040260&oldid=1040259 yourself.] I personally do not find this to be an attack, but rather an explanation that E=mc2 works in both directions. You can start with the amount of mass that was converted into energy and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of energy that was released, or you can start with the amount of energy released, and the formula will correctly calculate the amount of mass that was converted. We are all friends here and can disagree without being disagreeable. I know that some people are still learning physics or are confused about how E=mc2 does '''not''' involve the theory of general relativity. We now have 100 years of verifiable evidence that the equation shows the relationship between energy and mass. I have a great deal of respect for AugustO, who has contributed to many areas of this project. User:Gryfin has limited himself to debating this equation and relativity, perhaps to promote a specific book and website. The idea of mass-energy equivalence is just as easy to visualize as the idea of potential vs. kinetic energy. Any good physics book can explain both ideas.
::While I wish everyone the best, we must face the fact that many people are judging the entire project based on the contents of this one page, and that some editors are discouraged from participating further in CP based on the way this issue has been handled. Let's work this out with a spirit of respect, fellowship and understanding. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
:::Gryfin, you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between basic units and derived units. As for ''Arbitrary values cannot validate the tangible.'' That sounds nice, but doesn't make sense. But I won't get drawn into a discussion on lofty topics with someone who has problems with the very basics... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

==Lead paragraph==
A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc2 to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section. On March 11 it was reverted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section. As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article. It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section. I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

:I agree that the Lead seems at odds with the rest of the article. The conflict, as I see it, is that on the one hand we want to make referenced verifiable statements, but on the other hand, we don't want to give any credence to a crackpot theory that drives people away from scripture. I think we can accomplish both. There are plenty of articles on non-Christian and liberal topics -- Islam, Communism, etc. Why not present E=mc^2 as a similar system of beliefs. Accurately parrot what a group of people say about matter and energy, but effectively bracket all the content with "liberals believe (_____)". Then everything within those brackets can at least be the actual claptrap that liberals promote. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 11:27, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
::From everything that I have read, social conservatives and political conservatives believe that E=mc2 is true. I understand that there is some controversy about general relativity, but I have never read any coherent source that explains how it "drives people away from scripture." E=mc2 is one of many beautiful facts about nature that support the idea of a creator; many people say that the development of the Atom bomb just in time to end World War II was God-inspired. Please direct me to a serious source to the contrary, and I will take a look. (A self-published book is not the type of reliable source that would convince me.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:19, 21 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Maybe there is evidence that RINOs like Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger believe the equation, but I've never heard a real conservative support it. I think Mr Schlafly himself used language to the effect that it moves people away from the Bible. Isn't that "coherent" enough? [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 15:51, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
::::You weren't able to find out the views of Karl Rove or Arnold Schwarzenegger on the subject of an esoteric point of the Theory of Relativity? Why is that? Could it be that one is a political activist and the other is a former bodybuilder, actor, and governor? Like most people, they can't be expected to have specific views on this. I would guess that you would not get any specific answer if you were to ask other people of various political stripes--Nancy Pelosi, Bill O'Reilly, Todd Akin, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, and so on.
::::So here's what I suggest you do. Talk to people you know, who you believe are true conservatives. I don't know who your contacts would be--people in your church, school, work, whatever. Now, don't ask them whether they have evidence about the truth or falsity of E=mc^2, they probably won't know. But you can ask about the atomic weights of Radium, Radon, and Helium, and that will give you an answer. Now most people don't go around with the atomic weights of various isotopes on the tip of their tongue either. So ask this: How would you go about finding the atomic weights of these elements? Before the rise of the internet, the answer would be simple. Look in a physics textbook, or in Encyclopedia Brittanica or whatever. Now they might name a web site, perhaps Wikipedia, or some textbook. They might name Conservapedia. Disclaimer: I just added the atomic weights here at Conservapedia, and you might consider me a biased observer. So you might not want to take my word for it. (If you think there are better, conservative, values for these, feel free to edit them in. You might want to set the atomic weights of all isotopes to the nucleon number times the atomic weight of neutral Hydrogen. That would make E=mc^2 false. But I digress.) Anyway, find out what people think. Good luck. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:01, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::We need to be fair to the reader. To have a coherent article, the article must first state what the equation means, then give its history, then report why the people who believe it including the experimental evidence, then present the arguments from the people who do not believe it and finally, throw in the popular culture items. This lets the reader follow the discussion. The lead paragraph should not become so long as to defeat its summary purpose. Please remember our responsibility to have a coherent encyclopedia not a tit for tat word game. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:39, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
I am going to wait a week for further comments, and if nobody objects, I will make the reorganization discussed above. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 27 March 2013 (EDT)
:It sounds like the most convincing evidence supports an interpretation of E=mc^2 where 'm' represent a ''change'' in mass corresponding to a ''change'' in energy 'E'. We should explain the formula in these terms. Then, point out the extended interpretation of mass-energy equivalence, with the disclaimer that it is a liberal idea. It would be supported by the example of matter/antimatter annihilation, if such a thing were real. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 00:59, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Dsherman

2013-03-16T19:44:44Z

DamianJohn: Created page with "{{Welcome}} To make a signature, just click on the button above that looks a bit like a signature. It is 10 from the left. Cheers --~~~~"

{{Welcome}}
To make a signature, just click on the button above that looks a bit like a signature. It is 10 from the left. Cheers --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:44, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Free will

2013-03-16T03:51:23Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Syamsu (talk) to last revision by Karajou

'''Free will''' is the concept that it is possible to make choices by an act of will based on independent thought.

*... free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in a manner necessary for moral responsibility<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] </ref>

This would appear to be impossible in a solely naturalistic system in which biochemical processes obey natural laws, not will.

[[Incompatibilism]] views free will as being in conflict with the doctrine of [[determinism]], while [[Compatibilism]] sees no conflict between the two.

In some denominations of the [[Christian]] faith it is believed that humans were created with free will so that they would choose to believe in and worship [[God]]. Other Christian traditions, such as [[Calvinism]], believe that humans were created without free will, but that God's will determines our choice of him. The issue is theological. It relates to the human's acceptance of God, and does not mean that man is without free will in other respects.

For many, freedom of will is required for a functioning morality; that is, if we were not free we could not be held responsible for our actions, having been incapable of making a moral choice.

== Viewpoint of David Hume ==

However some philosphers (e.g. [[David Hume]]) have held that not only can morality and determinism co-exist, but in fact that morality ''requires'' that our actions were determined. The reasoning is as follows:

Decisions are just like any other event in that they have causes. The relationship between a reason and a decision is broadly similar to that between a cause and an effect; if an effect lacks a cause, it must necessarily be [[random]], and the same is true of a decision. Every element of the thought process that goes into making a choice must be either caused by external stimuli (the reasons for deciding one way or the other) or completely random. We could not be considered moral beings if our actions were random and therefore responsibility can fall only on determined individuals. Hume considered free will to be the freedom to do as one chooses (freedom of action), and therefore moral blame falls upon those who have acted immorally when they were at liberty to act otherwise.

==Free will and punishment==
Some people deny free will but still claim that punishment is necessary to deter harmful behaviour and protect the community. Such people argue that punishment should be the minimum necessary to deter harmful behaviour.{{fact}}

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Talk:Rob Portman

2013-03-16T03:34:45Z

DamianJohn: /* RINO all of a sudden? */

==RINO all of a sudden?==
With him now being tagged a RINO, it seems amidst the political grandstanding, no-one listened to what he said, that it all came down to "the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God." - good, solid, traditional Christian sentiments? Let's hope none of you ever have to deal with the situation he death with graciously and compassionately. Would you prefer he had thrown his son into the street, and never spoke to him again? What would you have had him do, exactly, to avoid the RINO tag? [[User:JOBrien|JOBrien]] 23:08, 15 March 2013 (EDT)
:I think a true conservative would follow the example of Ann Coulter and disown a gay child. [http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/10/ann_coulter_tweets_disown_your.html] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppW9g-FIwLg] --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:34, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Voxhumana

2013-03-12T04:29:22Z

DamianJohn:

'''Log of my page edits.'''

As my participation here may possibly cause suspicion, here are the diffs of my edits.

# [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1040338&oldid=1033523 Restoration of pre-vandalized article text]

{{Welcome}}
I hope you will be productive here and enjoy your time. There is no need to make a log of your edits as if to prove your good intentions, they will be readily apparent from your actions. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Secularized Language

2013-03-11T04:58:23Z

DamianJohn: /* Utter nonsense */

I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Washington's Birthday/President's Day ==

While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of [[Joan of Arc]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::: Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about ''any'' of the items on the list.

::::::::::Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::: How can President's Day even be considered remotely secularized as it was never a religiously themed event to begin with? The reason we have President's Day is due to the hesitation and the unwillingness of conservatives in the southeast to celebrate Lincoln's birthday as vilified he was as in infringing on "state's rights," and removing their "Peculiar institution." This contrasts to other locations in the country who celebrated both Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday in two different events. Furthermore, the Federal Government was disinterested in granting two Monday's off for federal employees, so came the compromise of celebrating a day between Lincoln's and Washington's birthday.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 21:46, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::::: Lincoln never had a stature comparable to Washington, and it's not merely because southerners disliked Lincoln. The attempt to equate Lincoln to Washington as a joint federal holiday was a farce and never got off the ground.

::::::::::::: But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christians. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christian has been diluted and even misnamed. It's the same secularization seen in replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Mr. Aschlafly, I am unsure if you are purposefully misapplying my point so that your argument appears to be stronger, but I feel that your point is less than successively argued. In fact, the reason that Lincoln is trumpeted as being one of the greatest Presidents to have ever had the honor of holding the office is because, pointedly, history holds him comparable to George Washington in regards to leadership and vision for the country. I am also at ends with your rather presuming statement of Washington's Christianity, considering the well documented Enlightenment-era beliefs he held associated with his principles as a Freemason, a largely deist organization.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 00:44, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::::::JustinU, it is well documented in Washington's own writings as well as the writings of those who knew him that he was a committed Christian within the Episcopalian Church. The "deist" allegation is from the late-20th century only. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:57, 23 February 2011 (EST)
[[Image:Clog-dancer.gif|thumbnail|right|150px|Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :)]]
:::The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia correctly declares and supports the doctrine that every true Christian believer is a saint.[http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/saints.htm] The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the <big>'''saints'''</big> which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 1-6) Washington appears to have been a true Christian.[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:33, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== A few questions ==

A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list.
For example:
*'''Resurrection Sunday''' -> '''Easter'''
::"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.

*'''Washington's Birthday''' -> '''President's Day'''
::It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.

*'''Pagan''' -> '''Secular'''
::Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).

*'''God bless you''' -> '''Gesundheit'''
::Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.

[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::Merriam-Webster Online: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan?show=0&t=1298483529 Pagan] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular Secular]
::The first definition for "pagan" is ''a follower of a polytheistic religion'' - notice "polytheistic religion". Secular is ''not overtly or specifically religious''. There's a difference, and in order to claim that "secular" is a redefinition of "pagan" you have to completely ignore the ''first'' definition of "pagan". There's probably another word that could be used as the precursor of "secular" (Atheist?), but it's not "pagan". [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 12:58, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::To clarify: I '''do''' think that the word "secular" and maybe "pagan" belong on this list, but not together. Maybe "atheist" -> "secular" and "pagan" -> "Wiccan" or such? [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:28, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== The Saint's Days ==
* Valentine's Day is no longer officially the feast day for St. Valentine, which definitely explains on some level why the "St" has been dropped from the name. February 14th is now the feast day for Cyril and Methodius, this changed in 1969 under Pope Paul the V, I think.

*Paddy for St. Patrick's Day makes logical sense in that Paddy is a celtic diminutive for Padrig, which is Anglicized to Patrick. I've never actually heard it as Paddy's Day, I've always heard it as "St. Paddy's Day"

*Resurrection Sunday has been called Easter since at the very least the AD 600s. St. Bede's ''Ecclesiastical History of the English People'' written in the early 700s refers to it as Easter, although he does admit it is tied to the Pagan festival of Eostre he still uses the term Easter. I don't think it is logical to use Easter as an example of modern society trying to erase Christian influence from daily life, I think it is simply a continuation of a name that is well over 1,000 years old.

just my thoughts, good luck.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments, but they don't contradict the observation of bias. Practicing Catholics are a small minority in the United States and Western Europe, so the relevance of the Church's changing of the feast day for St. Valentine hardly seems dispositive. As to your second point, the "logical sense" is very strained in denying credit where it is due. As to your third point, Christians refer to Easter as Resurrection Sunday to this day, just fewer of them. And there was bias in 600 A.D. too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I too have never heard paddy's day, it is always proceeded by the "St.". While catholics may be a minority in the west one exception to that is Ireland (the only country in the EU with out abortion) and I think the secular consciousness still associates Ireland with Catholicism. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: I agree that the actual Saint's days have been marginalized, and that the meaning of the holidays hold almost no religious meaning anymore. Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day not as a saint's feast but as a day to meaninglessly celebrate their Irish-ness and dye rivers green and over-indulge in drinking alcohol, and Valentine's Day is a day to celebrate love and has very little to do with the old saint's feast.
: However, I stand firm on my third point, I find it highly unlikely that '''Saint Bede''', venerated in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, who is also considered a '''Doctor of the Church''' to be biased towards an unchristian term. In the 700s Bede refers to it as Easter and it has been called Easter by the English people and English speakers since at least then. For well over 1,000 years the majority of devout English Christians have called it Easter, and thus its use cannot be a modern attempt to try to obscure Christian origins.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:22, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I agree that the use of Easter is not a ''modern'' secularization, but I still wonder whether its use was influenced by pagan tendencies in the first millennium. I have no quarrel with Saint Bede but am not sure he named it. He may well have been an expert about God but that does not make one an expert about bias. Quite the contrary: Jesus said the people of [[faith]] do not quickly recognize the tricks of the worldly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

A small correction about one of my role models. Bede is not a saint although, as IScott pointed out, he is a Doctor of the Church. His tomb, in Durham Cathedral, is worth a visit! [[User:Rafael|Rafael]]

:Thanks for correcting that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (EST)

::I don't mean to be harsh, but you are mistaken Rafael, Bede is a Saint. He is often refered to as just "the venerable" but he is a Saint so I can see where you might be confused. He is venerated in the Anglican Communion as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Even Conservapedia's own entry on [[Bede]] has an icon that says "St. Bede." Furthermore a google search of Saint Bede shows that there are a variety of churches named in his honor, in Williamsburg, VA there is a Catholic Church called St. Bede's Catholic Church, as well as an Anglican Church of St. Bede in Scarborough, ON, Canada, and a variety of churches and Parish schools in England. In the Episcopal Church Bede's feast day is May 25th. Bede is very much a Saint. Hope that clears up the Sainthood of Bede!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 16:42, 2 March 2011 (EST)

: I agree with others on how Easter is considered Secularized? Easter takes place around the Jewish Passover and is actually called Pascha in the Original Greek in the NT. Pascha is Greek for Pesach which Pesach is Hebrew for Passover from the OT. Pascha and Pesach are the same word. In Latin vulgate the word for Easter and Passover is Paska, my point. Easter and Passover are the same word in the historical Greek text. It wasn't until Tyndale when translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into English—for there was no Passover, only Pesach(Hebrew)/Pascha(Greek)—needed a way to separate the Jewish Passover from the Resurrection, and thus he creates Easter and Passover. Easter is an anglicized version of the Germanic word Oster which in German means auferstehung or Resurrection. To simply sum up, there is someone who is much better adept at explaining than I am and I urge someone to watch and critique [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkJMeSrTSg "Easter is NOT Pagan"]. On a final note, Easter is used in the KJV Bible, so is the King James Bible somehow written by secularist Liberals? -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 20:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Perversion diversity ==

As I understand it this is a list of words that are backward compatible to former religious meanings. We could stop saying Happy Holidays as a society and say Merry Christmas. I'd hate to think of what bigots we would appear to be if we started calling diversity perversion. "Have a lot of people off all different races, creeds, and colors working at your company, you are perverted!" or "A black man marrying a white woman, that's a perverted couple!" Since I doubt that anyone here thinks that way (and if they do maybe they should find somewhere else to be) then I think that should be pulled from the list for now. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:'Diversity' is a word used often by liberals and others who push the [[homosexual agenda]], claiming that ongoing [[homosexualization]] is in the name of diversity. As a conservative and one who reads the Bible daily, I find same-sex marriage perverse, yet liberals such as yourself would refer to such things as diverse. Hence, your non-sequiturs aside, I feel the entry should remain. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:10, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::A) You didn't address my point
::B) Perversion isn't a religious word any more than right and wrong. Are math teachers helping to keep Christianity vibrant and alive by assigning problems which are later graded as right and wrong?
::C) How ever often you claim to read the bible doesn't really matter here. This is the internet, anyone can claim to read the bible. however much they want. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::I'd have to weigh in with [[User:AlaskanEconomy|AE]] on this. Although, specifically, "diversity" is ''becoming'' a by-word, diversity is an [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity old word] and refers to more than ''just'' homosexualization, by keeping it as is '''gives''' those advocates legitimacy and (in the end) we end up losing a serviceable word. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 21:06, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::We could make several categories of terms which have normal vs. liberal counterparts. Not all such pairs are examples of secularization. Some merely reflect the liberal worldview. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::Diversity is more an example of liberals distorting the meaning of a word, the way I see it. I wouldn't call the original meaning of "diversity" an example of perversion, but advocates of the homosexual agenda ''try'' to make it into a different word. [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:40, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Dead/Passed ==

I'm not quite sure this fits. While "passed" or "passed on" is certainly a euphemism for "dead," surely it carries with it the connotation of passing on to God's judgment? It seems to me like, if anything, "dead" is the more atheist-friendly term, since they're fond of claiming that once you're dead, you're dead. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:You seem to be correct, perish->dead maybe? Do what you feel is right.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Use of Christian Language in non-Religious Context ==

Based on the introduction to this page, the list is supposed to contain Christian expressions that have been replaced by secular expressions. But some examples are Christian expressions that are being used in non-Religious context. (Examples on this page include "Saintly"/"Well-behaved" and "Angelic"/"Pretty." Other examples I thought of are "Oh my God!" instead of "Oh no!" and calling something "divine" instead of "delicious" or "in excellent taste.") Maybe this page can have one list of Christian expressions that are being replaced with different secular terms, and one list that contains Christian expressions that have been inappropriately adopted by the secular crowd for non-religious use. Does this make sense? Or do you think this all belongs in the same list? --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 12:25, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== Gesundheit means "God Bless you!" in German==
Gesundheit litterally translates to "God Bless you!" in German. I don't think there is any malice or Secularized Language in this phrase. I think it was just a custom started by German-American Immigrants that caught on. As a descendant of German-American immigrants I feel obliged to point this out. Thank you, --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:30, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:As a speaker of German, I can tell you that Gesundheit means "Health". Gott segne dich! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:03, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:Sorry to disagree with you, Davidkon, but "geshundheit" means "good health" as this entry[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gesundheit] states. The German word for God is "Gott", and this word is not part of gesundheit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:07, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== Changes ==

I made a start at the categories Ed suggested, and organized the terms alphabetically within each category. I did remove the example of "Jesus!" to "Gee whiz!", as I really think that's primarily a case of people trying not to use the Lord's name in a profane fashion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:10, 26 February 2011 (EST)

: Your improvements are superb. But I didn't know that "Gee whiz" was a secularization of "Jesus"! I'd be inclined to leave that in for informative purposes, even though you're reason for deleting it is probably. Perhaps with a footnote?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:: I can certainly see your point as far as the informative value, and this isn't, after all, just supposed to be an article about language that was secularized for malicious reasons. It seems like we really do need a section exploring possible reasons for the secularization of language, and the ways in which even benign motives can contribute to the trend. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:::Hmm...that being the case, should similar euphemistic alterations like "Jeepers Creepers" be added in, too? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:23, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:::: You win. Let's keep that junk out. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Government ==

Hello,
I was wondering wondering what the rational of "State -> Government", along with "Govern -> Rule". I don't particularly see how either is Christian or secular, and beyond that, it seems like these to contradict each other. Just wanting to hear some thoughts. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 18:52, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:Seems straightforward: the more atheistic one is, the more he views government as the church, and officials in government as rulers. In contrast, the term "state" includes the people (e.g., "State of Rhode Island"), and governing connotes an element of service rather than purely ruling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Christmas/Xmas ==

I would like to point out that the English letter X looks exactly like the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of 'Christ' in Greek. That is the origin of 'Xmas' and it is not an attempt to take Christ out. I submit that 'Xmas' should be removed from this list.
--[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 11:51, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:That's a slippery slope: referring the "X" to "Christ". Let's keep it in for now.

:Eventually, we can expand this topic, branching out to all sorts of language differences between conservatives and liberals. The religious-secular division is just one such difference.

:By the way, I'd prefer you to use your real name (unless Andy has given you specific permission to use a pseudonym). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::The transliteration of Christ in Greek is Χριστός, for what it is worth.
::I thought the point of the article was how we all talk about the same things but that the sacredness has been removed by substituting a synonym to remove the holiness of the original words.
::I suppose, conversely, one could make the point that LORD is a "secularized" version of the tetragrammaton. This was done for the reason that YHWH was too sacred to be uttered. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 17:37, 2 March 2011 (EST)

== "Notes" section ==

I added a "notes" section for things myself and others in the Talk page have pointed out. Let me know what you think. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)

== Shrove Tuesday/Mardi Gras ==

"Mardi Gras" is the '''''only''''' way to say "Shrove Tuesday" in French. Shrove Tuesday is a specific English tradition of a confessional before Lent. In French culture, the last day before Lent is ''Mardi Gras'', '''''never''''' a French translation of "Shrove Tuesday". The Vatican liturgical calendar doesn't even include the day before Ash Wednesday. [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#MARCH_2011] [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 15:04, 9 March 2011 (EST)

== Fighting Secularized Language ==

Would it be appropriate to comb through Conservapedia articles for instances of secularized language on this list, and change them to reflect the correct words? I haven't been active in a while, and I thought such a project might be a good re-introduction to the community.
--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 19:43, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

:That's a great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:23, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks! I'm on it. One question; is there any way to edit page titles? For example, the 'birth control' pill should really be called the 'abortion' pill; I think that's both fighting secular language and much more accurate, anyways (not that there's any chance of secular thought being mistaken as logical!).--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 22:58, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
:::If doing so would require more user rights than I have, I could also compile a list for a moderator to look at when they're not busy. I'm running into quite a few; '[[Halloween]]' should be renamed 'Hallowed Eve,' for example.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 23:10, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Will I'm reverting you on quite a few pages - I think you're going too far in a lot of cases, for example, in an article called "Atheist vs. Secular" you replaced "secular" with "pagan" (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheist_vs_Secular&diff=857269&oldid=854632 here]). I also particularly disagree with your edits [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina&curid=4875&diff=857294&oldid=832249 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Falsifiable&diff=857293&oldid=849936 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&curid=29600&diff=857297&oldid=685921 here] ... well pretty much of all of them. I'm likewise going to accuse you of parody. If Andy disagrees with my reverts I will obviously cease, but until he approves your edits I plan on reverting you on-sight.
::::Also you'll notice that this entry makes very clear that birth control is not always used to mean "abortion" - it's only noting that abortionist might use the phrase birth control so that they don't have to say "abortion" - so your changes there are also disingenuous.
::::Furthermore, and lastly, the notion that only "pagan liberals" use the secularized version of these words is laughable. Through secularization the words have entered into (indeed, sometimes replacing the old words) modern vernacular. If you're to suggest that everyone who uses the term "Easter" is a pagan liberal ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection_Sunday&action=historysubmit&diff=857285&oldid=844239 as you did here]) - then you're suggesting the majority of the United States is pagan liberals, which is simply not the case '''at all'''. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::User is blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:44, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

== Removing "Paddy's Day" ==

As Aschlafly said, "atheists have been unable to secularize the name of the holiday by omitting 'Saint'." [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 10:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

:The difference between [[St. Patrick's Day]] and [[Valentine's Day]] is that the former is to honor a [[saint]] (and [[patriot]]), while the latter about exchanging romantic cards and is no longer related in the public mind with the original [[Saint Valentine]].

:I don't expect the secularists to achieve the same success with [[Christmas]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:13, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== Christmas, and Islamic terorism ==

I may be totally off base here, but isn't "Christmas" technically an example of secularized language, as it is an abbreviation of "Christ's Mass"? It looks like an attempt to remove the "mass" aspect of Christmas. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:Also, I'm not sure that Islamic terrorism (or any terrorism, for that matter) and man-made disasters can be automatically conflated while excluding other terrorism. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing, an example of domestic (and not Islamic) terrorism, certainly wouldn't fall under the commonly accepted definition of "man made disaster". While it is certainly a disaster, made by man (and not God), then wouldn't all terrorism necessarily fall under this definition? [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:07, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Patriot --> Extremist ==

Given that the first use of the word dates to 1577 and speaks more to love of country than to love of God, isn't it already a "secularized" word to begin with? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 17:28, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
: I didn't think about it like that. What do you think God & Country --> Extremist would do better?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:49, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::I'm trying to parse out what you're thinking here: "One example would be West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel (D) is running against Allen West in 2012. His campaign is to label West as an extremist. Harry Reid is known to call patriots extremists." Okay, Frankel is calling West an extremist. Not knowing much about West, I have no real informed opinion on the matter, but that's entirely in the realm of the secular (ie, everyday party politics) to begin with. Where is the sacred/religious/holy aspect of West's or Frankel's position that is being elided with a secularizing discourse? And then you bring in Reid, and his use of the term "extremist" as a way to talk about his political opponents; again, this is business as usual for politicians, and I don't see any secularizing agenda here. The point of "secularizing language" is just that -- to secularize, ie, to draw our attention away from, or obscure, those elements of our history/experience/culture which speak to the domain of the sacred. Party politics is already secular by nature. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 18:05, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:::West's points are a respect for God, love for the Constitution, America is exceptional, family is important, discipline and honor. The people attacking him are the extremists. They are the ones calling themselves righteous by calling him extremist. They support the control of people, not freedom. They support breaking the Constitution to implement their radical agenda. They don't respect God by pushing moral depravity and deaths of children in the womb. I understand that politics is secularized already, maybe a bad example. However, you can remove the politics and still find patriot --> extremist. The DHS targeting the people who loves this country as extremist. They [say] they don't look at it from a partisan point of view, only by threat level. So they themselves have removed politics from their decision and decided patriots are a threat aka extremist. I'd like to hear from others first before deciding to remove. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:19, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::By trying to frame "patriotism" as something that is by nature sacred, it becomes impossible to conceive of a love of country that isn't rooted in love of God. The two aren't mutually exclusive--try telling as much to the 25 million Soviets, at least a portion of whom were doctrinaire communists, who died in the Great Patriotic War. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 18:33, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

== Founders/Extremists--> Is that even a thing? ==

Are there seriously people out there who aren't so fringe as to be completely unremarkable that are trying in a concerted manner to paint the Founding Fathers as a group of extremists? And how exactly would that be "secularizing language" ie trying to obscure a fundamentally religious phenomenon by using discourse as a means by which to hide the religious roots/origins/nature of a term? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:But the founders ''were'' extremists!
:The group of people we call the founding fathers could have worked many other ways to right the wrongs they saw perpetrated against English citizens in America, yet they choose complete and utter dissolution of the bonds to the Mother country, revolution. (If revolution isn't extreme then perhaps we need a new conservative word?) [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 22:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

== I'm not sure you know what that word means. ==

"Secularizing" means to remove the religious elements from something, and thus to render it secular, such as replacing "Merry Christmas" (a religious concept) with "Happy Holidays" (a secular one). Going from "constitutionalist" to "birther" is not about secularizing a term and robbing it of its religious meanings. It's about using a snarl word for somebody's political point of view. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:12, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

:Why don't you educate all to what ''that'' word means exactly marty? Strictly political? It is in fact a God given right to freedom and liberty. It has honor, it was deemed pure. There is a sacred''ness'' nature to Constitutionalist. To call someone a birther is to say fringe and extreme, to marginalize demands laid forth by the Constitution. In other words to secularize. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:33, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

== Should we add a historical part about the efforts of the Third Reich in secularizing/changing German language? ==

I'm pretty sure, that the Nazis tried to reform the German languages vocabulary quite extensively. That might be interesting for this article. A book that discusses this phenomenon is here[http://www.amazon.com/Language-Third-Reich-Imperii-Continuum/dp/0826491308/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top]. An article (in German) about the subject would be here [http://www.lingua.amu.edu.pl/Lingua_13/MAKOWSKI.pdf]. A reference to George Orwells ''1984'' might also be interesting since the book shows among other things, how a totalitarian governement will try to influence and control the language of its citizens. Since this would be a rather polarising edit I would like to have the OK of an admin. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 18:46, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: Thanks for your interesting suggestion. Please add some historical examples to the entry. I'll add a new section to get it started.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for the new section. I added Nazi-Germany and George Orwell. It would be wonderful if someone could write something about the secularization of language in the Eastern Block, DDR and USSSR. I know there were efforts, but I don't know enough about them to add them. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:52, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Thanks for your fascinating addition about this! Many will now learn from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:13, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

== page cleanup necessary ==

User Adamdiscordia appears to have multiple edits to this entry and it needs to be cleaned up. I don't have much interest in this article so I will let more active editors for this page do the clean up. I would also review the work of other new editors as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:06, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

This article contradicts its own terminology. "Secular" is said to be the secularized version of, among others, "godless" and "pagan". Shouldn't it be changed? [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 23:49, 15 December 2011 (EST)

== One Nation Under God ==

I think that particular phrase should be removed from the list of secularized language. In fact, it should be listed as an example of religious language '''enhancing''' secular language. The original expression did not include "under God" but was added to expressly reflect this nation's belief in God as opposed to atheistic communism. I think the part about atheists trying to undo it should stay. Thoughts? [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 14:32, 9 February 2012 (EDT)

== Some of this is ridiculous. ==

For example, the "flood waters/flooding/flood".

How is that secular language.

And quite honestly, have you ever thought that some of these were just because they were mouthfuls?
Language evolves over time. Please, guys, you're making a mountain out of a molehill-- just like the liberal media. {{unsigned|Kaitlynnm}}

== Utter nonsense ==

*How is contracting Christ's Mass to Christmas secularized?
*The X in Xmas is actually a Greek letter Chi for CHrist
*Civil calendar just refers to that used by the government
*How is saying the Fourth of July secularized? I suppose if something happened on the day I must say Independence Day because July 4 is secular
*When was Easter ever called Resurrection Sunday?
*Who even says "Praise be!"
*Afterlife is not secular language. Any set of beliefs includes something that happens after life == afterlife
:Please sign your posts. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:58, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Arbitration

2013-03-08T03:58:03Z

DamianJohn:

'''Arbitration''' is the hearing of a [[dispute]] by an impartial third person or persons (chosen by the parties), whose award/decision the parties have agreed to accept.

In the United States, arbitration pursuant to contracts involving [[interstate commerce]] is governed by the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] of 1925. The FAA requires courts to dismiss or stay a case when a party compels arbitration pursuant to a contract, unless the contract is invalid for reasons generally applicable to contracts, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability (''[[Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto]]'').

In consumer and employment contracts, arbitration agreements often include class-action waivers, requiring parties to seek relief on an individual basis only. In April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states like California could not refuse to enforce an agreement to arbitrate with a class-action waiver on the grounds that it would deny class relief (''[[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]]'').

The process is overseen by an '''arbitrator''', who is a private, disinterested person chosen by the parties to hear [[evidence]] concerning the dispute and to make an award based on the evidence.

==See also==
*[[Mediation]]
*[[Alternative dispute resolution]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Arbitration

2013-03-08T03:55:17Z

DamianJohn:

'''Arbitration''' is the hearing of a [[dispute]] by an [[neutral|impartial]] [[third person]] or persons (chosen by the parties), whose award/decision the parties agree to accept.

In the United States, arbitration pursuant to contracts involving [[interstate commerce]] is governed by the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] of 1925. The FAA requires courts to dismiss or stay a case when a party compels arbitration pursuant to a contract, unless the contract is invalid for reasons generally applicable to contracts, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability (''[[Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto]]'').

In consumer and employment contracts, arbitration agreements often include class-action waivers, requiring parties to seek relief on an individual basis only. In April 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states like California could not refuse to enforce an agreement to arbitrate with a class-action waiver on the grounds that it would deny class relief (''[[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]]'').

The process is overseen by an '''arbitrator''', who is a private, disinterested person chosen by the parties to hear [[evidence]] concerning the dispute and to make an award based on the evidence.

==See also==
*[[Mediation]]
*[[Alternative dispute resolution]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Arbitration

2013-03-08T03:53:39Z

DamianJohn:

Arbitrator

2013-03-08T03:52:19Z

DamianJohn: Redirected page to Arbitration

#REDIRECT [[arbitration]]

Arbitrator

2013-03-08T03:51:14Z

DamianJohn: Redirected page to #REDIRECT [[arbitration

#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[arbitration]]]]

Category talk:Legal Terms

2013-03-08T03:48:43Z

DamianJohn: Created page with "I am planning on doing a bit of a rationalisation of some of these terms. There are simply far too many terms and many related terms could do with merging. If anyone has any ob..."

I am planning on doing a bit of a rationalisation of some of these terms. There are simply far too many terms and many related terms could do with merging. If anyone has any objections to this, please feel free to bring it up here and we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis. My intention is to provide a general and concise explanation for any and all legal terms a layperson might come across in their day to day life; NOT to provide a scholarly resource for lawyers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:48, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Bill Clinton

2013-03-08T00:15:13Z

DamianJohn: /* Taxes increases */should either be "tax increases" or "taxes increase"

{{Officeholder
|name=Bill Jefferson Clinton
|image=billclinton.jpg
|party=Democratic
|spouse=[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=42nd
|terms=January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
|vp=[[Al Gore]]
|preceded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=40th and 42nd
|state=Arkansas
|terms=January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981; January 11, 1983 – December 12, 1992
|preceded=[[Joe Purcell]] (first term) [[Frank D. White]] (second term)
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Frank D. White]] (first term) [[Jim Guy Tucker]] (second term)
}}
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=Arkansas
|number=50th
|governor=[[David Pryor]]
|deputy=n
|terms=January 3, 1977 – January 9, 1979
|preceded=[[Jim Guy Tucker]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Steve Clark]]
}}
}}
'''Bill Clinton''' (formally '''William Jefferson Clinton'''; born William Jefferson Blythe III) (b.August 19, 1946), was president of the United States, elected with pluralities in 1992 and 1996. Previously he had served as governor of Arkansas. In the post-[[Cold War]] era his administration was characterized by reduced defence spending which produced a budget surplus, lower [[interest rate]]s and excessive stock and real estate and bubbles. The U.S. House of Representatives impeached Clinton for [[obstruction of justice]] and [[perjury]], while the Senate failed along party lines to convict. Clinton later was found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and subsequently barred from ever practising law again.

Like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, Clinton used his rhetorical skills to achieve political success; he survived in office despite legislative defeats, repeated scandal (he was notorious for his [[sexist]] improprieties) and impeachment.<ref> Whittington (1997)</ref>

After leaving the White House, he became a very well-paid speaker. His wife, [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], was elected to the Senate from New York in 2000 and 2006, and in 2009 became the third female Secretary of State. Clinton was the major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife, but failed to win the African American vote to neutralize Hillary's main opponent, [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries.

== Early Life ==
Clinton was born in Hope,<ref> [[Mike Huckabee]] was born in Hope in 1955, but did not know Clinton.</ref> Arkansas, a month after his father William Jefferson Blythe II, a salesman, was killed in an auto accident. He was raised by his maternal grandparents until age 4, when his mother Virginia Kelly (1923-1994), a nurse, married Roger Clinton (1909-1967), a car dealer. Roger was an alcoholic and violent; the marriage was tempestuous, including a divorce and a remarriage in 1962. A life-long Southern Baptist, Clinton graduated from the Hot Springs public high school in 1964. He attended Georgetown University in Washington D.C., where he became active in Democratic politics and won prestigious Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University in England. He was a bit player in the anti-Vietnam war movement, and managed to stall the draft until he received a high lottery number, an evasion that became controversial in his first presidential campaign. He attended Yale Law School (JD 1973). A hail fellow well met, Clinton developed a vast network of friends. He met [[Hillary Clinton]] at Yale; they married in 1975 and had one daughter, Chelsea in 1980.

== Arkansas Attorney General and Governor ==
After returning to Arkansas as a law professor at the university, Clinton was elected state Attorney General in 1976. In 1978, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country at age 32 . Though defeated in 1980, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 and held it until becoming President in 1992.

===Civil Rights violations===
In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]], 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''Clinton vs Jeffers'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governor and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,
{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court concluded
{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.}}

===Arkansas scandals===
Clinton was involved in several scandals while Governor of Arkansas. He converted governmental resources for personal use by having Arkansas state policemen arrange and stand guard during his extramarital rendezvous with women.<ref>Thomas C. Reeves, ''[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n14_v10/ai_14988880 Why Troopergate matters to voters]'', ''Insight on the News,'' April 4, 1994.</ref>

His close personal business partnerships with James and Susan McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture led to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but prosecutors never charged either Clintons with a crime.

==Democratic Leadership Council==
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) formed in early 1985 to formulate a moderate Democratic agenda. With [[Al From]] as executive director and Georgia Senator [[Sam Nunn]] as chairman, DLC comprised mostly Southern Democratic congressmen. They sought to rebuild the party's image after a series of defeats by Reagan and Bush. They wanted to assure voters that the moderate-conservative wing of the party was alive and well, and that its policy initiatives fit with mainstream American values. After the 1988 defeat, From asked Clinton in March 1990 to become the first DLC Chair from outside Washington. He and Clinton recruited state and local officials from around the country for the DLC, trying out some of the policy initiatives developed by the affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Proposals that found their way into Clinton's 1992 platform included:
* Apprenticeship programs for non-college-bound skilled workers
* A program of national service for college students (with student loan forgiveness)
* A ROTC-style program to train new police officers in colleges
* An enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor
* Government-subsidized individual savings accounts for Social Security.

The two DLC manifestos and Clinton's 1991 "New Covenant" speech accounted for more than 60% of the promises in the 1992 Democratic platform. <ref> Borrelli, 432-35</ref> Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat," with an appeal to southerners and moderates that included demands for welfare reform and support for the death penalty.

===Election of 1992===
After the surge of support for the war policy of President [[George H.W. Bush]] pushed his popularity to the 90% level, most prominent Democrats decided to wait out the 1992 election. Clinton, though little known outside Arkansas, proved the best campaigner in a weak field and won he Democratic nomination. Unexpectedly, billionaire [[Ross Perot]] entered the race (and briefly led the polls). Both Bush and Perot proved poor campaigners, as Clinton and his running mate [[Al Gore]] promised a more responsive government. Republicans tried to use the character issue, questioning his failure to serve in the [[Vietnam War]], repeating rumors of extramarital affairs, and stories of marijuana use in college days. But Bush was handicapped by a bad economy, and was wounded badly by breaking a promise to not raise taxes. Clinton hammered away at the economy--"It's the economy, stupid!" explained his campaign manager. Clinton and Gore ran as "new Democrats", promising to cut middle class taxes, reduce domestic spending, end welfare and support capital punishment. Clinton won the electoral college decisively, and outpolled Bush 43% to 37%, with 19% for Perot.

Clinton thus won easily, and entered Washington with a Democratic Congress and a vague agenda.

Clinton, the first President born after [[World War II]], represented the "baby-boom" generation.

==Presidency (1993-2001)==
:''Main article:'' [[Clinton administration‎‎]]
===Don't ask don't tell ===
:''Main article'' : [[Don't Ask, Don't Tell]]
Upon being elected President, Bill Clinton's first act was to propose and win legislation to enforce the [[Department of Defense]]'s "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule. The law passed by the Democratic Congress has been described as a major discriminatory policy which promoted and legitimized [[homophobia]] and [[bigot]]ry. ''[[Time magazine]]'' reported it caused untold hardship and emotional anguish for thousands of American service personal.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y</ref><ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y</ref> The Law was found [[unconstitutional]] after a suit brought by [[Log Cabin Republicans]], a homosexual rights and advocacy organization.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/</ref>

===Community Reinvestment Act===
:''Main article:'' [[Community Reinvestment Act]]

===Mexican Peso bailout===
[[Image:ClintonPresident.jpg|right|thumb|275px|Bill Clinton's Presidential cabinet]]

=== Tax increases ===
Clinton's first priority while coming into office was a $60 billion [[stimulus]] package largely viewed as a payoff to big city mayors for Get-Out-The-Vote efforts. He also sent Congress a proposal to reduce the deficit in eleven years. However, the country's real problem was that about half of government spending goes to [[nondiscretionary entitlement]] programs such as [[social security]] and [[medicare]]. Refusing to control domestic spending, he increased taxes on ordinary consumers for gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas, breaking his campaign pledge not to raise taxes.<ref>Clinton repeatedly mocked incumbent President George H.W. Bush on the campaign trail for breaking his pledge to "read my lips, no new taxes."</ref> On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years.<ref>J.D. Foster, Ph.D. [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom#_ftn1 Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom], ''The Heritage Foundation'', March 4, 2008.</ref> Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners.<ref> ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref> Conservatives blocked some proposals, such a new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year.

===Tax increases on the elderly===
In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on [[Social Security]] benefits of the elderly and disabled.<ref>http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/seniorsd.txt</ref> The final version of the bill passed by the [[Democrat]]ically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20040408115747/www.ssa.gov/OACT/HOP/hopi.htm</ref> of benefits (or "annuity payments" as they were originally called). [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% [[income tax]] rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vLg4iJR0J9kC&pg=PA16593&lpg=PA16593&dq=Vice+President+Gore+cast+the+tie-breaking+vote%2Bsocial+security&source=bl&ots=-ImIDX6fHa&sig=ttWVUNAIVsLQoEg1ZhCntHB_02Y&hl=en&ei=dobVTMr9HoOglAe0iuX9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Vice%20President%20Gore%20cast%20the%20tie-breaking%20vote%2Bsocial%20security&f=false Congressional Record, Comments by Rep. Christopher Cox,] July 27, 2000.</ref>

===Dirty tricks and blackmail===
FBI special agent Gary Aldrich reported, James Carville and former Clinton adviser, now [[ABC News]] anchor [[George Stephanopoulos]] confirmed, after the Gingrich revolution of 1994 the Clinton administration ran a dirt-digging operation out of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff. "They hired upwards of 36 lawyers to staff the operation to handle 40 different cases," Aldrich, on White House duty at the time, said. "Once it became known that they had such an operation, then the blackmail itself took place." Carville and Stephanopoulos stated publicly there would be a "scorched-earth policy", and that everyone who had "skeletons in their closet" would be exposed.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_16/ai_62896460/</ref> [[CNN]] has reported private divorce papers of Newt Gingrich were indeed removed from what was alleged sealed storage at the Carroll County, Georgia courthouse, "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention." The documents were later made public by CNN.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html</ref>

In 1995 President Clinton and Congressional Republicans fought a bitter battle over the new federal [[budget]]. Clinton vetoed the Republican budget bill, claiming that it cut social programs. Speaker Gingrich believed that Clinton would back down and approve the budget. If not the entire government would shut down because of lack of funds. Clinton allowed just that, and by doing so gained political capital by successfully blaming that shut down on Republicans. Soon afterword, Clinton agreed to the Republican's goal of a balanced budget.

=== Failed healthcare takeover ===
:''Main article:'' [[Clinton health care plan of 1993]]
After ignoring the controversial issue on the campaign stump, one of his first acts in 1993 was a call for an immense overhaul of the nation's medical care system. The Clintons proposed a plan using regional insurance purchasing agencies along with tax subsidies and transfer payments to implement universal coverage. He and his advisers believed the plan would be acceptable to employers and larger insurance companies, but the plan was opposed by popular sentiment and a well-financed campaign. The pla put immense burdens on small business employers, which feared they could not afford it. The insurance industry, doctor organizations, and medical professionals also opposed it. Republicans argued that it was too costly and imposed too great a burden on government. Congressional Democrats were divided on the issue. Faced with public opposition and a two year national debate, the Clinton plan failed without the Democratic Congress even going on record to a vote.

Skocpol (1996) suggests the major mistake may have been in emphasizing the cost-reducing aspect of the plan, not realizing that Americans were willing to pay for a government program that would provide generous benefits to them. The fear that Clinton's proposals would lead to the sort of health care rationing prevalent in Canada and other countries further troubled the voters. Starr (1997) notes that Clinton sought to achieve liberal ends of universal coverage through the conservative means of managed competition among private health plans, with a backup cap on the rate of growth in average insurance premiums. This approach had a political as well as policy rationale. It was meant to be the basis of an alliance that could include conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans and thereby achieve the majorities necessary for congressional passage. But what we saw as compromise, they did not -- especially as the very locus of the political center shifted to the right during the debate. Health care reform that seemed "inevitable" to many serious observers at the start became unthinkable by the end. Polls showed strong initial support, but he never secured passage in either house of Congress and Republican victory in the 1994 elections doomed his plans.

== 1994 Midterm elections ==
Clinton's popularity had slipped by 1994 and the GOP, under [[Newt Gingrich]] launched a national midterm campaign based on a Republican "Contract with America." They proposed lower taxes, welfare reform, tougher anti-crime laws, term limits for Congress, revised rules in Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

In the elections of 1994, the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and 8 seats in the Senate (followed by two defections after the election), giving the Republicans a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954. The Republicans also had a net gain of 12 governors' seats in that election.

Analysts have suggested many causes for the drastic change in political sentiment in the country between 1992 and 1994; among the causes suggested were voter disgust at Congressional scandals mainly implicating Democrats, voter distrust of Clinton after the presentation and defeat of the Clinton health care reform proposal--dubbed "Hillarycare"; the nationalization of the election by Gingrich's "Contract with America", and more skilled framing of issues by the Republicans in 1994.

In their first 100 days the House did pass the Contract with America, however, the GOP Senate failed to go along and Clinton's vetoes defeated the Contract.

==1996 Reelection campaign==
[[File:ECON1994.jpg|thumb|390px]]
After the Republicans took control of Congress by the time of the 1996 reelection campaign the economy had improved. [[Unemployment]] and inflation was low, American wages increased, crime rates fell, and the number of people on welfare declined. The [[Republican Party]] nominated Senate Majority Leader [[Robert Dole]]. Ross Perot ran again, this time on the Reform Party, but his day was past. Clinton was reelected in a landslide with 49% of the popular vote, to 41% for Dole, and 8% for Perot. His personal victory had limited coattails, with Republicans retaining a clear majority in the Senate and a narrow majority in the House. It also marked the first time since 1926 and 1928 that the Republican Party carried the House in two consecutive elections.<ref>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/17342942.html?dids=17342942:17342942&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+11%2C+1996&author=Don+Fedr&pub=Boston+Herald&desc=A+night+to+cheer+for+conservatives&pqatl=google</ref>

==Second term==
With the [[Cold War]] over, the economy proved highly prosperous, and after the [[Republicans]] won control of Congress the budget was not only balanced but a surplus was produced for the first time in memory. The reasons include reduction in defense spending after the Cold War (from 5% of GDP to 3%), a revenue burst from the [[dot-com bubble]] (the short-lived overexpansion of high tech), restraints on spending imposed by [[Newt Gingrich]] and the GOP Congress, and the fruition of Reagan era tax cuts for business research and development in the consumer electronics (computer and cell phone) industry.

=== Impeachment ===
On August 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of White House intern [[Monica Lewinsky]]'s upcoming testimony regarding her extramarital affair with the President, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having misled the public and a Federal Court over keys elements of testimony. [[Kenneth Starr]], a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the case, was instructed to pursue the matter.
[[File:ClintonTIME9801.jpg|thumb|290px]]
In the second term Clinton was accused of perjury when he lied under oath during the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. In the end Clinton was impeached in the House and was tried in the Senate for two counts: "perjury" and "obstruction of justice".<ref>The House turned down two other counts: "abuse of power" as well as another count of "perjury" in connection with the Paula Jones case.</ref> Although a majority of 55 Senators voted to convict, a minority of 45 Senators gained his acquittal, a two thirds majority being necessary to remove him from office. Speaker Gingrich, who had promised Republicans that impeachment would be a success, had failed badly and was forced to resign and left Congress. The Republican next in line resigned, admitting he too had committed adultery.

[[David Gergen]], former White House Communications Director for both Presidents Reagan and Clinton, summarized the hurt of the President's misconduct:
{{Cquote|The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them....when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it...You don't foul the nest."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm In Washington, That Letdown Feeling], By Sally Quinn, ''The Washington Post'', November 2, 1998, Page E01</ref>}}

Clinton lost his law license in Arkansas because he had committed perjury before a Federal judge.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm</ref>

===Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act===

=== Foreign Policy ===
Critics of Clinton argued that he lacked a knowledge of [[world]] affairs. In his 1992 speech at the Democrat National Convention, he devoted one minute to foreign policy issues in an oration that lasted an hour. <ref>The Presidents by David Maraniss, Pg. 626</ref> Clinton entered office after the U.S. won the [[Cold War]], and the U.S. was the only superpower. There were no major foreign crisis during his presidency. His foreign policy was based on five principles: 1) strong alliances with Europe and Asia, 2) positive relations with former adversaries, 3) a global perspective on local conflicts, 4) the adaptation of national security priorities to incorporate technological advances, and 5) effective economic integration.<ref>Samuel R. Berger, "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," ''Foreign Affairs'' 2000 79(6): 22-39. 0015-7120 </ref>

Butfoy (2006) argues that in the 1990s the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), which produced "smart" weapons like cruise missiles, came of age. This apparently transformed how America viewed the relationship between force and international relations. It looked as though technology was framing foreign policy. In particular, smart weapons enabled Clinton to combine risk minimization with an expanded security agenda. However, we should be wary of ascribing technological determinism to the conflicts of the 1990s dominated by Washington's flexing of its strategic superiority, such as its bombing of Belgrade. As shown by comparison with US strategy after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington's stance in the 1990s was shaped by linkages between technology and specific political circumstances. As these circumstances changed, so did the RMA's place in US efforts to shape world order.

====North Korean nukes====
From 1985 to 1992, N. Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of international diplomatic agreements under which it promised to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. By Clinton's second, however, N. Korea had violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements and withdrew from the rest.

Clinton forged an agreement with Kim Il-sung that the North would temporarily halt its signed on Oct. 21, 1994 known as the "Agreed Framework."<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm</ref>

In addition to the oil supplied under the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea continued to the United States and other countries for free, unconditional food aid while eschewing any real reform of its [[Stalin]]ist agricultural system. <ref>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm</ref>

By 2000, the United States contribution of food and other forms of humanitarian aid to North Korea had amounted to over $61 million.

==== Al-Qaeda and terrorism ====
The Arab terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted a World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Clinton bombed al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan in response, but meanwhile 19 terrorists were plotting an even more ghastly attack on America which took place on September 11, 2001, eight months after Clinton left office.

====Human Rights====
Supporters of human rights faulted Clinton’s ideological transition from [[Wilsonianism| Wilsonian idealism]] to [[Realist|realism]], especially regarding China and Bosnia. They gave high marks for his efforts at pushing peace negotiations in Haiti and the Middle East, the use of economic sanctions against North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and his efforts to get a chemical weapons convention. However, they give low marks in terms of human rights for inaction on the genocide in Rwanda and the Russian repression of secessionist Chechnya.

===Terrorist pardons===
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070703053819/http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieve from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> Deputy Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] was credited with with an "unconscionable" effort to circumvent the standard pardon process, not consulting with the [[Department of justice]]'s pardon attorney and keeping deliberations hidden from the district U.S. attorney and investigative agencies. [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorists]] [[Linda Evans]] and Susan Rosenberg were also pardoned.<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI= ''Confirming Fears''], Editorial, National Review Online, November 19, 2008.</ref>

== Post-Presidency ==
Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. She was reelected in 2006. She made a failed bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|Democratic presidential nomination in 2008]].

Clinton has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives for his actions in his wife's presidential campaign. ''Time'' called him "his wife's attack dog". <ref>http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2008/01/28/OpEd/Editorial.On.The.Campaign.Trail.Bill.Clinton.Should.Keep.His.Mouth.Shut-3171498.shtml</ref> Although he had signed up most black leaders to support Hillary, the great majority of Black voters went for Obama. Clinton was accused of racism by implying that many voters chose [[Obama]] for reasons of race, rather than policy, saying that he succeeding in some regions for the same reason [[Jesse Jackson]] did.

After Obama refused to give Hillary the Vice Presidential nomination, both Clintons loyally campaigned for Obama. Obama easily defeated Senator [[John McCain]], and named Hillary Secretary of State. Bill Clinton has maintained a low profile in 2009.

==Legacy==
Of the $1.6 million Clinton earned in salary<ref>http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/wjclinton.html</ref> as President for 8 years, Clinton agreed to pay $850,000,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm</ref> or more than 53% in a legal settlement with [[Paula Jones]] to satisfy claims for damages to her reputation.

Every President since [[William Howard Taft]] in 1910 has served as Honorary President of the [[Boy Scouts of America]] during his term in office. In 2000 it was reported the Boy Scouts national office revoked the title afforded to Bill Clinton after thousands of complaints. Numerous Eagle Scouts returned their certificates of achievement bearing Clinton's signature and requested a replacement without it.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13204 Eagle Scouts drop Clinton signature], ''WorldNetCaily.com, August 24, 2000.</ref>

==Bibliography==

===Basic reading===
* Berman, William C. ''From the Center to the Edge: The Politics and Policies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2001) 160pp, useful summary and interpretation
* Campbell, Colin, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. ''The Clinton Legacy'' 348 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58143940 online edition]
* Clinton, Bill. ''My Life''. (2004). ISBN 0-375-41457-6. [http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Bill-Clinton/dp/140003003X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464316&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
* Felsenthal, Carol. ''Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House‎'' (2008) 386 pages
* Gillon, Steve. '' The pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the rivalry that defined a generation‎'' (2008) 342 pages, by a leading historian; [http://books.google.com/books?id=d-U2IzI2r5YC&pg=PA78&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton, Nigel. ''Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency'' (2007) covers 1993-96, 766pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ky8fzAmUIvAC&pg=PA203&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House'' (2005) ISBN 0-375-50847-3, the best coverage of the presidency [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464409&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hyland, William G. ''Clinton's World: Remaking American Foreign Policy'' (1999) ISBN 0-275-96396-9 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14147621 online edition]
* Klein, Joe. ''The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton'' (2003) by leading journalist [http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html online excerpt and search]; [http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Misunderstood-Presidency-Bill-Clinton/dp/0767914120/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464449&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Peter. ''Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency'' (2002), 400pp; 230 well-balanced articles
* Maraniss, David, ''First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton'' (1996) ISBN 0-684-81890-6. Biography to 1991. [http://www.amazon.com/First-His-Class-Biography-Clinton/dp/0684818906/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464484&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Posner, Richard A. ''An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton'' (1999) ISBN 0-674-00080-3 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77420690 online edition]
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102246366 online edition]
* Schier, Steven E. ''The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in U.S. Politics'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Presidency-Clintons-Politics-Political/dp/082294135X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Biographical and Presidential===
* Barber, Benjamin. '' The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House‎'' (2008) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=zwywJroh6PoC&pg=PA11&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Berman, William C. ''From the Center to the Edge: The Politics and Policies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2001) 160pp, useful summary and interpretation
* Campbell, Colin, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. ''The Clinton Legacy'' 348 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58143940 online edition]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Congress and the Nation 1993-1997: A Review of Government and Politics: 103rd and 104th Congresses'' (1998); ''Congress and the Nation 1997-2001: A Review of Government and Politics: 105th and 106th Congresses'' (2002). Highly detailed nonpartisan coverage (1200 pp each) of all political issues, including presidency
* Gillon, Steve. '' The pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the rivalry that defined a generation‎'' (2008) 342 pages, by a leading historian; [http://books.google.com/books?id=d-U2IzI2r5YC&pg=PA78&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton, Nigel. ''Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency'' (2007) covers 1993-96, 766pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ky8fzAmUIvAC&pg=PA203&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House'' (2005) ISBN 0-375-50847-3, the best coverage of the presidency [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464409&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Klein, Joe. ''The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton'' (2003) by leading journalist [http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html online excerpt and search]; [http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Misunderstood-Presidency-Bill-Clinton/dp/0767914120/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464449&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Peter. ''Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency'' (2002), 400pp; 230 well-balanced articles
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102246366 online edition]
* Schier, Steven E. ''The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in U.S. Politics'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Presidency-Clintons-Politics-Political/dp/082294135X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Clinton to 1992===
* Abbott, Philip. "A 'Long and Winding Road': Bill Clinton and the 1960s," Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9.1 (2006) 1-20 in Project Muse
* Borrelli, Stephen A. "Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992," ''Journal of Policy History'' Vol. 13#4 (2001), pp. 429-462 in Project Muse
* Goldman, Peter L. et al, ''Quest for the Presidency, 1992'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11169230 online edition]
* Maraniss, David, ''First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton'' (1996) ISBN 0-684-81890-6. Biography to 1991. [http://www.amazon.com/First-His-Class-Biography-Clinton/dp/0684818906/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464484&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Foreign Policy===
* Butfoy, Andrew. "The Rise and Fall of Missile Diplomacy? President Clinton and the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' in Retrospect." ''Australian Journal of Politics and History'' 2006 52(1): 98-114. Issn: 0004-9522 Fulltext: in Ebsco [http://www.questia.com/read/5014679475 online complete editon]
* Cohen, Warren I. ''America's Failing Empire: U.S. Foreign Relations since the Cold War.'' 2005. 204 pp.
* Davis; John. "The Evolution of American Grand Strategy and the War on Terrorism: Clinton and Bush Perspectives" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 3, 2003
* Hendrickson, Ryan C. ''The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers'' (2002)
* Hyland, William G. ''Clinton's World: Remaking American Foreign Policy'' (1999) ISBN 0-275-96396-9 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14147621 online edition]
* Jewett, Aubrey W. and Marc D. Turetzky. "Stability and Change in President Clinton's Foreign Policy Beliefs, 1993-96" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001392338 online edition]
* Livingston, C. Don, Kenneth A. Wink; "The Passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the U.S. House of Representatives: Presidential Leadership or Presidential Luck?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 27, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/read/5000429192 online edition]
* Maclean, George A. ''Clinton's Foreign Policy in Russia: From Deterrence and Isolation to Democratization and Engagement'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Clintons-Foreign-Policy-Russia-Democratization/dp/0754649016/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

===Domestic Policy===
* Edwards; George C. "Bill Clinton and His Crisis of Governance" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001393468 in Questia]
* Fisher; Patrick. "Clinton's Greatest Legislative Achievement? the Success of the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Bill" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 1, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002437663 in Questia]
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World'' (2007), memoir by head of Federal Reserve [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence-Adventures-New-World/dp/0143114166/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260097183&sr=1-1xcerpt and text search]
* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House''. (2005) covers the major policy issues [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260097075&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lanoue, David J. and Craig F. Emmert; "Voting in the Glare of the Spotlight: Representatives' Votes on the Impeachment of President Clinton" ''Polity'', Vol. 32, 1999
* Needham, Catherine. "Brand Leaders: Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent Campaign." ''Political Studies'' 2005 53(2): 343-361. Issn: 0032-3217 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Nie; Martin A. "'It's the Environment, Stupid!': Clinton and the Environment" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 27, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001516576 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/019512216X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195117012&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Poveda; Tony G. "Clinton, Crime, and the Justice Department" ''Social Justice'', Vol. 21, 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000301618 online edition]
* Renshon; Stanley A. ''The Clinton Presidency: Campaigning, Governing, and the Psychology of Leadership'' Westview Press, 1995
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) ISBN 0-8153-3583-0
* Stiglitz, Joseph E. ''The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade'' (2004) economic history; [http://www.amazon.com/Roaring-Nineties-History-Worlds-Prosperous/dp/0393326187/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Wattenberg; Martin P. "The Democrats' Decline in the House during the Clinton Presidency: An Analysis of Partisan Swings" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 29, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001303783 online edition]

===Polls, campaign, images, character, scandals===
* Blaney, Joseph R. and William L. Benoit. ''The Clinton Scandals and the Politics of Image Restoration,'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Scandals-Politics-Restoration-Political-Communication/dp/0275971066/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194471793&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search] [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101159621 online edition]
* Borrelli, Stephen A. "Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992," ''Journal of Policy History'' Vol. 13, #4 (2001), pp. 429-462 in [[Project Muse]]
* Cohen; Jeffrey E. "The Polls: Change and Stability in Public Assessments of Personal Traits, Bill Clinton, 1993-99" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 31, 2001
* Cronin, Thomas E. and Michael A. Genovese; "President Clinton and Character Questions" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' Vol. 28, 1998
* Denton Jr. Robert E. ''The 1992 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective,'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104563698 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. ''The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective,'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26288597 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. ''The Clinton Presidency: Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24374540 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. ''Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Communication-Strategies-Presidency-Presidential/dp/0275971767/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Glad; Betty. "Evaluating Presidential Character" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001393536 online edition]
* Maurer; Paul J. "Media Feeding Frenzies: Press Behavior during Two Clinton Scandals" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 29, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001239881 online edition]
* O'Connor; Brendon. "Policies, Principles, and Polls: Bill Clinton's Third Way Welfare Politics 1992-1996" ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 48, 2002
* Posner, Richard A. ''An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton'' (1999) ISBN 0-674-00080-3 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77420690 online edition]
* Renshon, Stanley A. "The Polls: The Public's Response to the Clinton Scandals, Part 1: Inconsistent Theories, Contradictory Evidence" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 32, 2002 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773179 online edition]
* Renshon; Stanley A. '' The Clinton Presidency: Campaigning, Governing, and the Psychology of Leadership'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9961027 online edition]
* Starr, Kenneth. ''The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair'' (1998) ISBN 1-891620-24-X
* Whittington, Keith E. "The Rhetorical Presidency, Presidential Authority and President Clinton," ''Perspectives on Political Science,'' Vol. 26, 1997
* Waldman, Michael. ''POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words That Defined the Clinton Presidency'' (2000) ISBN 0-7432-0020-9
* Wattier; Mark J. "The Clinton Factor: The Effects of Clinton's Personal Image in 2000 Presidential Primaries and in the General Election" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 4, 2004
* Weisberg, Herbert F., and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier. ''Reelection 1996: How Americans Voted,'' 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62235822 online edition]

===Health reform===
* Blendon, R. J., M. Brodie, and J. Benson. "What Happened to Americans' Support of the Clinton Plan?" ''Health Affairs'' 1995. 14(2):7-23. [http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/14/2/7?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=brodie&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT online edition], analysis of poll data
* Fox, Daniel M. "A Lost Cause: Bill Clinton's Campaign for National Health Insurance, and: The Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of President Clinton's Plan for Health Security," ''Bulletin of the History of Medicine'' vol. 73, # 2, Summer 1999, pp. 367-369 in [[Project Muse]]
* Laham, Nicholas, ''A Lost Cause: Bill Clinton's Campaign for National Health Insurance'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-lost-cause-bill-clintons-campaign-for-national-health-insurance-by-nicholas-laham.jsp online edition]
* Rushefsky, Mark E. and Kant Patel. ''Politics, Power & Policy Making: The Case of Health Care Reform in the 1990s'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Power-Policy-Making-Health/dp/1563249561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260096806&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Skocpol, Theda. ''Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics,'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Health-Reform-Against-Government/dp/039331572X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472221&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Primary sources==
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
*Clinton, William jfeerson. ''Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton: from Hope to Harlem‎'' ed. by Janis F. Kearney (2006) 402 pages; [http://books.google.com/books?id=EVdrKWADFnsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2006&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Starr, Kenneth. ''The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair'' (1998) ISBN 1-891620-24-X [http://books.google.com/books?id=NxWTTbiij0wC&dq=inauthor:Starr+inauthor:Kenneth&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
===Memoirs===
* Clinton, Bill. ''My Life''. (2004). ISBN 0-375-41457-6. [http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Bill-Clinton/dp/140003003X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464316&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
* Blumenthal, Sidney. ''The Clinton Wars''. (2003). ISBN 0-374-12502-3 [http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Wars-Sidney-Blumenthal/dp/0374125023/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472136&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World'' (2007), memoir by head of Federal Reserve
* Stephanopoulos, George. ''All Too Human: A Political Education'' (1998) ISBN 0-316-92919-0 [http://www.amazon.com/All-too-Human-George-Stephanopoulos/dp/0316930164/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472067&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Arkansas Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Former Governors]]

Talk:Duane Gish

2013-03-07T21:20:13Z

DamianJohn: /* Dr. Gish's death */

==Debate Transcripts==

Are there any transcripts of Dr. Gish's debates that can be linked to from this article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:00, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::I added a YouTube playlist of the gish vs. plimer debate in Australia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:12, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dr. Gish's death ==

Shouldn't something be mentioned here about Dr. Gish going home to be with the Lord? [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/03/06/gish-home]
:Why is this page locked? Someone unlock please. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:52, 7 March 2013 (EST)

:: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:11, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:::Cheers. This sort of article should not be locked as a rule. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:20, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Duane Gish

2013-03-07T21:16:21Z

DamianJohn:

[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. Duane Gish]]
'''Duane Gish''' (February 17, 1921 - March 5 2013<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/03/06/gish-home ''Rescued! Remembering the Life and Legacy of Dr. Duane T. Gish'' - Answers in Genesis]</ref>) was a prolific debater for [[YEC|Young Earth Creationism]] and a member of [[ICR|The Institute for Creation Research (ICR)]].

Gish was viewed as the winner of his debates by friend and foe alike based on audience reaction.<ref>Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, ''Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science'', by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm]</ref> So profound was Gish's impact on the debate scene, that [[evolution|evolutionary]] websites posted articles stating not how to debate Creationists in general, but instead how to specifically debate Duane Gish. Dr. [[Henry Morris]] wrote of Dr. Gish, who had over 300 formal debates, "at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins." <ref>Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, ''Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science'', by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm]</ref>

==Various media examples by and about Gish==
===Facing The Fire===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LawGTZXBQrQ&feature=channel_page Part 1 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm6umxwRKK8&feature=channel_page Part 2 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCQn5s1fSZ0&feature=channel_page Part 3 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYalAhw8T8s&feature=channel_page Part 4 of 4]
===The Origin of Man===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ The Origin of Man]
== External links ==

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&list=PL557163935DE7DB84&feature=plpp Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate]
*[http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=404 The Gish - Max Amarillo Debate]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gish, Duane}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Duane Gish

2013-03-07T21:14:23Z

DamianJohn: tenses

[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. Duane Gish]]
'''Duane Gish''' (February 17, 1921 - March 5 2013), now retired, was a prolific debater for [[YEC|Young Earth Creationism]] and a member of [[ICR|The Institute for Creation Research (ICR)]].

Gish was viewed as the winner of his debates by friend and foe alike based on audience reaction.<ref>Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, ''Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science'', by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm]</ref> So profound was Gish's impact on the debate scene, that [[evolution|evolutionary]] websites posted articles stating not how to debate Creationists in general, but instead how to specifically debate Duane Gish. Dr. [[Henry Morris]] wrote of Dr. Gish, who had over 300 formal debates, "at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins." <ref>Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, ''Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science'', by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm]</ref>

==Various media examples by and about Gish==
===Facing The Fire===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LawGTZXBQrQ&feature=channel_page Part 1 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm6umxwRKK8&feature=channel_page Part 2 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCQn5s1fSZ0&feature=channel_page Part 3 of 4]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYalAhw8T8s&feature=channel_page Part 4 of 4]
===The Origin of Man===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ The Origin of Man]
== External links ==

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&list=PL557163935DE7DB84&feature=plpp Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate]
*[http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=404 The Gish - Max Amarillo Debate]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gish, Duane}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Talk:Duane Gish

2013-03-07T20:52:15Z

DamianJohn:

Solicitor

2013-03-07T08:18:40Z

DamianJohn: /* See also */

A '''solicitor''' in [[England]] and some [[Commonwealth]] jurisdictions is a type of lawyer who restricts their practice to matters outside of representing clients in court. A solicitor can be distinguished from a [[barrister]] who specialises in only representing clients in court.

==See also==
*[[Barrister]]
*[[Attorney]]
*[[Fused profession]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Solicitor

2013-03-07T08:18:03Z

DamianJohn: Created page with "A '''solicitor''' in England and some Commonwealth jurisdictions is a type of lawyer who restricts their practice to matters outside of representing clients in court. A ..."

A '''solicitor''' in [[England]] and some [[Commonwealth]] jurisdictions is a type of lawyer who restricts their practice to matters outside of representing clients in court. A solicitor can be distinguished from a [[barrister]] who specialises in only representing clients in court.

==See also==
[[Barrister]]
[[Attorney]]
[[Fused profession]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Fused profession

2013-03-07T08:10:08Z

DamianJohn:

'''Fused profession''' describes jurisdictions where the [[legal]] [[profession]] is not split between [[barrister|barristers]] and [[solicitor|solicitors]]. The term is generally used in countries which, following the [[England|English]] model, had this split, but have provided by [[statute]] for there to be a single legal profession. The legal profession in the [[United States]] is fused.

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Testify

2013-03-07T08:06:22Z

DamianJohn:

To '''testify''', also known as to '''give evidence''', is to answer questions as a witness in [[court]].

In normal circumstances, the party calling a witness to testify will initially perform a [[direct examination]] before the opposing side has a chance to [[Cross-examination|cross-examine]]. The initial side will then have a chance to [[Re-direct examination|re-direct]] on any matters raised during the cross-examination. All testimony in court is given [[oath|under oath]] which means charges of [[perjury]] will apply to any deliberate lies told.

Normally a witness can only be asked about what they know about an event; that is what they themselves [[direct evidence|directly saw or heard]]. Only a properly qualified [[expert witness]] may be asked their opinion about their evidence, or to draw an inference from the available facts.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Expert witness

2013-03-07T08:02:13Z

DamianJohn: stub for now to remove redlink, will improve later

An '''expert witness''' is a special kind of witness in court who, due to their training and experience, is able to provide their opinion to the court on the implications of evidence before the court.

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Testify

2013-03-07T07:58:07Z

DamianJohn:

To '''testify''', also known as to '''give evidence''', is to answer questions as a witness in [[court]].

In normal circumstances the party calling a witness to testify will have an initial chance to perform a [[direct examination]] before the opposing side has a chance to [[Cross-examination|cross-examine]]. The initial side will then have a chance to [[Re-direct examination|re-direct]] on any matters raised during the cross-examination. All testimony in court is given [[oath|under oath]] which means charges of [[perjury]] will apply to any deliberate lies told.

Normally a witness can only be asked about what they know about an event; that is what they themselves directly saw or heard. Only a properly qualified [[expert witness]] may be asked their opinion about their evidence, or to draw an inference from the available facts.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Testify

2013-03-07T07:54:08Z

DamianJohn: concise, short summary. Nothing else required I don't think.

To '''testify''', also known as to '''give evidence''', is to answer questions as a witness in [[court]].

In normal circumstances the party calling a witness to testify will have an initial chance to perform a [[direct examination]] before the opposing side has a chance to [[cross-examine]]. The initial side will then have a chance to [[re-direct]] on any matters raised during the cross-examination. All testimony in court is given [[under oath]] which means charges of [[perjury]] will apply to any deliberate lies told.

Normally a witness can only be asked about what they know about an event; that is what they themselves directly saw or heard. Only a properly qualified [[expert witness]] may be asked their opinion about their evidence, or to draw an inference from the available facts.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

User talk:DamianJohn

2013-03-07T05:48:39Z

DamianJohn: /* Block Rights */

Hi Damian, you joined conservapedia before me however let me welcome you!
The reason I post here is to let you know, as you created the page, that I made some changes to the Destiny Church page.
Just a heads up! God bless.[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Got your message. A few people argue with some of my edits too, although I do try to go by what the better historians have to say.
:Best wishes.[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 19:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== World history guide ==

The basics are just about done, huh?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:18, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah we have done pretty well. I'm gonna keep adding to the more advanced stuff when I get spare time. It is hard to get into a sentence or two basic information and something interesting as well. I have learnt a few things (eg I thought the Huns were from Germany - apparently not). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yeah. I'll help you with that soon.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:54, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
== Tonight ==
: Final of the Tri-Nations. Kiwi in Oz makes me nervous [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yes indeed. I think we should be too strong but you never know with those wily Aussies. Hosea Gear unlucky to miss out but still a pretty good team. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Extra privileges granted ==

Congratulations, the additional privileges of blocking and rolling back have been added to your account!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Courtesy and decorum==

Please do not pick fights with other contributors. After you've made your point, move on. Rob Smith is an old friend. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:15, 2 February 2012 (EST)
:I am sorry Ed that you feel I have picked a fight with Rob. I do not think that is a fair appraisal of the situation. Rob and I have had a love/hate relationship for perhaps as long as you have, and he is well aware that his continual insulting of me and my country was inappropriate behaviour for THIS site. The matter has been dealt with and I am not entirely sure why you have chosen to fan the flames more. In any case I shall assume that you act in good faith and will let the matter drop; confused as I am by your input. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:22, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== April 2012 ==

Thank you for your contributions here at Conservapedia. May I ask, what inspired [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ESPN&diff=971238&oldid=732525 this]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 01:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
:Yes of course. It was this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageleft&action=historysubmit&diff=971165&oldid=970924 edit by Andy Schlafly]. There was some doubt raised subsequently about the correct interpretation of that posting, and although I personally was sceptical about Andy's claim, I thought it was appropriate that the views of the site leader and owner be reflected with the articles. We are, as I'm sure you appreciate, here merely at the leisure of the site owner. Our role is to facilitate the articulation of those views, whether we personally agree with them or not. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:26, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Well-deserved promotion ==

Congratulations - your account has been promoted!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Context-free grammar ==

Hi Damian,
You commented recently that [[Context-free grammar]] was currently a "a list of gobbledygook" (I agree with your comments).

I just about finished working on [[Chomsky hierarchy]], which involves the same sort of things as [[Context-free grammar]]. Could I ask you to have a look at [[Chomsky hierarchy]] and let me know if it is perhaps a little more accessible to the average reader (any constructive comments are welcome). If you are happy with my style and level of writing, then I intend to turn my hand to rewriting [[Context-free grammar]] in a similar vein. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:15, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
:Looks good to me. Well done. I have been very busy the past few weeks so I haven't been around. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:32, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== NathanG ==

I unblocked this user because I was looking through his last 10 contributions or so, and couldn't figure out why he'd been blocked.[http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/NathanG]

Some appear to be reasonably constructive, fixing typos or changing British spelling to English: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=536464][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&diff=prev&oldid=536462][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Desegregation_of_Central_High_School_(1957)&diff=prev&oldid=536457][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Schenck_v._United_States&diff=prev&oldid=536455][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ich_bin_ein_Berliner&diff=prev&oldid=536454][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Original_sin&diff=prev&oldid=536435][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Electronic_Frontier_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=536434][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sentencing_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=536433][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Arkansas&diff=prev&oldid=536350][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wei_v._Bodner&diff=prev&oldid=536349][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hazleton&diff=prev&oldid=536348][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&diff=prev&oldid=536347][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grant_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=536341][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics_of_C.S._Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=536315][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jamestown_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=536310][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Cavendish&diff=prev&oldid=536309][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Pelham-Holles&diff=prev&oldid=536308][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Henry_Pelham&diff=prev&oldid=536307][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Spencer_Compton&diff=prev&oldid=536306][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Walpole&diff=prev&oldid=536305][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Strang&diff=prev&oldid=536304][http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Librarian&diff=prev&oldid=536303]

Others were talk page discussions just dealing with grammar: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet&diff=prev&oldid=536438]

Those which added substantial content didn't appear particularly bad: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Garden&diff=prev&oldid=536432]

Those are all pretty solid proofreading contributions for his last 20 contributions or so. I looked further and still can't see that he even made any particularly controversial edits. If so, can you point where they are at? I haven't heard anything from this NathanG person and have no idea if they're still around, I just was looking at people recently blocked to make sure the blocks were appropriate. I couldn't see anything indicating a proper block here.

You said "he is a self admitted liberal parodist." Well, whether that's true I have no idea. I certainly saw no indication this was the case from the contributions. Instead all I saw was the mark of a solid proofreader who was interested in helping the site with its grammar. I value proofreading pretty highly myself, the edits impressed me, frankly. And even if you were right that he's a liberal parodist, I thought we didn't ban off of ideology alone anyway, right? According to the guidelines?[http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines] I mean, we have debate pages so those who disagree can be talked with, right? Otherwise, what would be the point of just letting one side debate all the time?

Anyway, can you show me some sign the initial ban was appropriate? A BIG FACTOR for me was that the person who blocked him, TK, is now blocked[http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/TK], which made me really question whether the current block was still appropriate. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 07:44, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

I have no idea what he could've done, to make you so angry at him, but just based on what I've seen from the proofreading contributions he's made, unless it was some really serious vandalism that he committed to get banned, I still think he should be given another shot. Those are pretty solid, un-controversial edits that make perfect sense to me. And the editor who blocked him is banned now anyway. You've got to admit, from my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to unblock him unless some really strong evidence shows up for why he got blocked in the first place. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 07:51, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Anyway, I must be missing something here, there must be some evidence or reasoning I'm not seeing here, so I'll wait to hear back from you. Just help me understand why he got blocked in the first place, what he did wrong, and I'll agree with you the block was deserved if it was truly a serious offense. I've explained why I unblocked him, so if he did something to deserve the block, just tell me what it was and I'll just drop the issue. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 07:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Wow. I just realized he was an ex-administrator just now. I just saw his block history, and saw he'd unblocked himself?[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANathanG] One thing that jumps out at me is that numerous people who had him blocked are now gone. Bugler and Fox were both blocked by TK. TK is banned. Philip J. Rayment says on his profile he's resigned. And BethanyS hasn't contributed since 2009. Jpatt unblocked him in the past saying he was blocked without reason. Ed Poor also unblocked him before but blocked him too. And Karajou just blocked him for 2 hour periods too.

So let me get this straight - a lot of the main people blocking him for long periods are now blocked themselves. His edits appear to have been pretty constructive lately.... And half the time it looks like he was blocking himself. I'm really confused. It looks like from the block summaries like it might've had something to do with personal comments. I can't figure out why he got blocked though. This is really confusing. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

And why are Bugler and Fox blocked too? If TK is blocked, and he blocked them and NathanG - three different admins - then shouldn't we question whether his blocks were appropriate? I'd like to go back and re-examine this TK's blocks to make sure he didn't inappropriately have others blocked. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:TK is not blocked out of choice, he has gone to pastures greener. In any case, the user you know as NathanG had a personal relationship with one of the senior admins, and I understand that relationship has now ended. You would be well advised not to interfere with NathanG's case. If he wants to come back he can go through the appropriate channels.
:Can I suggest that you not go unblocking people from the past, you won't last long yourself. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:31, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::Alright, well, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. I suppose if NathanG wants to be unblocked they can contact someone about it. As for my unblocking people, I still believe most of the unblocks have been warranted.

::If I don't last long, well, I don't last long. I write and edit as passionately as I do because I believe in what I'm doing. If I see people who shouldn't be blocked, I believe in trying to make things right, although as you can see, I have no intention of bypassing other moderators. I'm sure there are cases like this where I don't know what's going on, and thus if anyone dislikes an unblock, I'll discuss it out and try to understand what's going on. I have no intention of reverting any blocks by Andy or Conservative, period. I respect that it's his site and put his decisions foremost.

::But as long as I've been given this block ability, I feel I have a responsibility to do what's right and make sure the right people have been blocked by other moderators, especially those like TK who are now banned. I can't just turn a blind eye and pretend bad blocks haven't happened. If the wrong people are blocked, it gives conservatives, Creationists, and Christians a bad name. It harms the entire site by preventing good people from helping make it better. Frankly, if I was the kind of person who just overlooked wrong things occurring, and didn't try to make things better, I'd still be at Wikipedia. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You don't know the context behind most of the blocks - for example, you seem to be unaware about what happened to TK. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:45, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::::You're right. Like I said, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. But most of the blocks I reduced were not this controversial, I'd argue. That's why I appreciate you telling me that. Like I said, I'll just drop it over this NathanG issue. Still, I have to admit, I don't understand how TK can be as innocent as you say. Otherwise, why was it Andy who blocked him? That doesn't seem like somebody just leaving for greener pastures, but an offence serious enough to cause the site's owner to take action. Again though, I have no idea what's going on, and no idea if NathanG even wants to be unblocked, so I'm just dropping it at this time. I didn't realize I was opening up a can of worms. I'll have to be more careful and watch for users who might have more in-depth backgrounds from now on before unblocking. I should've looked a bit more carefully in NathanG's case. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:00, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Don't unblock anybody, thats not your job. Blocking powers are really just to help with vandals, not to unilaterally enforce your sense of justice. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:40, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

==Spelling==

The phrase above, ''"British spelling to English"'', caught my eye and reminded me that in your User Page you apologise in advance for any lapses into British English (or words to that effect.) This matter was had out in 2006 or seven. It was agreed that British English is quite acceptable if used by editors brought up with that spelling if the subject is non-American or general talk. I would no more fly than type "Pearl Harbour". By the same token, I expect Americans to type "Sydney Harbour" and I have found that the great majority do. (Or did back in my day.) Cheers... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Mistake Edit ==

Thanks for reverting that edit of mine. Bdor25 wanted me to respond to an edit he'd made and I tried re-adding it, but had to go back to an old version of the page to find it.[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=996182] I edited that and accidentally removed newer material, sorry about that. Anyway, I'll just discuss the concerns with Bdor25 on his talk page instead of the main page anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:33, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

== My block ==

Hello, and I apologize for what seemed to be an edit war. I attempted to discuss the edits made to the page in question, but was consistently getting no responses, which gave me the impression that there was no further disagreement. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

:This site has a POV. You might not like it, but the articles reflect that POV. Stop being a pratt. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I realize that. My only contest was that the statement "same-sex marriage is prohibited in 'most religions'" was inaccurate and needed citation. Don't most fact based assertions need citation as outlined in the commandments? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

:::Most do, that conservative interpretations of religious doctrines are homophobic does not. When you say "most" I think you must be referring to religions like Hindu and Buddhism and traditional folk religions. I have known plenty of Hindis in my time and most of them carried their homophibic religious doctrine on their sleeve. If you can find a reliable cite for me to read that would bring the general statement that most religions are homophobic into question then provide it here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)
::::I can't believe that I've got the burden of proof on this =/ but whatevs, I'll see what I can find. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:::::I am interested to read what you find. I should also note that I also am not always entirely enamoured by the POV of this site, although I always try to stick to articles that are POV free and I try to toe the line on issues that are controversial. There is no point in getting worked up about this, it's just the nature of POV wikis. Where an issue is likely to be controversial, I suggest you tread with the utmost care. My short block and mild rebuke of you was partially an attempt to ensure you weren't dealt with more severely by other editors, who may have just blocked you permanently for edit warring with Andy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:36, 3 December 2012 (EST)
::::::So how exactly does this POV thing work? I'm just trying to understand. Do some things that align with that POV not need citation as much as things that are at odds with the POV? I figured that the POV meant that it would just focus on findings that support it, but I thought they still needed citation. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how this whole POV thing works in terms of citation. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:19, 3 December 2012 (EST)
:::::::That's pretty much it. I dunno if its quite as brazen as that, but essentially things that conform to the POV require less stringent citations than those that do not. That's true in general by the way. The maxim "''We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we're inclined to accept''" is unfortunately extremely accurate. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:46, 4 December 2012 (EST)
::::::::That does not make for very reliable material...Just to be clear btw, I agree with a lot of the conservative ideology. I was hoping to help in the citation department of this site and help make for a more reliable conservative information resource. I wish there was room for us to further our conservative causes the honest way =/ [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 13:22, 4 December 2012 (EST)

==(Obvious trolling)==

It seems you have a history of picking fights with various users, please stop. It is also not very good practice to unblock yourself for such matters. Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:38, 1 December 2012 (EST)
:It is perfectly fine when the block was done in bad faith. The issue about an edit to an article is being sorted out, and you are not helping. Who are you anyway? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:46, 1 December 2012 (EST)
:: The block was not done in bad faith, It was done to stop the incivility between you and KatieKomori including you calling her names. If you do not stop this behaviour I will block you again and raise this issue with Aschlafly [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 20:06, 1 December 2012 (EST)
:::How about you raise the issue with Andy before you go around blocking longstanding contributors who are attempting to resolve an issue? In fact, why don't you go and bring it up with him right now? Either way I don't care. My posts were perfectly reasonable given the situation, and you are acting very much in bad faith. You don't fool anybody buddy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)
::::For someone acting in good faith, you are using rather belligerent words. Chill bro. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:05, 1 December 2012 (EST)
:::::Thank you for your input Brenden. I consider the matter closed. If you want to contribute to the solving of the dispute regarding the nature of relgious attitudes to homosexuality, I would encourage you to do so, either on the talk page itself or in the section above this one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:29, 1 December 2012 (EST
Damian: I found that last edit positively Kennish. But well done against Sri Lanka by the way - and we won't mention the Rugby. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:34, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:Yes well, these things happen. As you can imagine it is pretty rare that our cricket team wins on the same day as our rugby team loses. As for sounding Kennish, well no comment, except to say that I entered into an edit war, resolved it, gave a mild rebuke to the person involved, proposed a solution, and then was blocked and accused of all sorts of nonsense by some guy whose been here all of 5 minutes. Now if people want to comment on the issue involved, fine, but coming to my page and looking to pick a fight is annoying. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:00, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::As you say: yes well. We have managed three in a row for a change - four if you count that draw - but we will not mention the cricket! I do sorta understand on the other thing. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
:::A magnificent fighting double century from Ponting to win the test in the last over of day 5? Oh ye of little faith. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::::There was a time. Not now. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than to be disappointed. There is no greater admirer of Ponting than I am. But 50-odd years of passionate watching, thinking, talking and suffering over the Game, (a lot of it, the watching at least, from the front of the top tier of the Noble Stand at the SCG over about 30 years of membership,) have taught me to be pessimistic. And you have to realise that I spent two days at Bellerive about this time last year. Ah, the shame of it!! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:46, 2 December 2012 (EST)

==I did what you asked for.==

J.
: Good, I hope you will be a productive member of the group. Which one were you? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:12, 6 January 2013 (EST)

== Reason for your block ==
The reason I ave you a 1 hour block was for blocking [[User:funforever]] who, whilst having a name that does not conform to the naming system, had made quite a number of useful contributions. I do hope YOU relise that actions such as this drive away useful contributors to the site. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)
:You may, of course, have discussed this problem with Damian, but that is not the way to go, is it? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 6 January 2013 (EST)
::I don't know about you, but this guy reminds me of a few other unsavoury editors from days past. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 6 January 2013 (EST)
:::I am glad someone else feels it. 02:07, 7 January 2013 (EST)
::::Sounds a bit like a trumpet player to me. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:21, 7 January 2013 (EST)
:Actually no. More sinister. He doesn't "feel" English. Certainly not North Country, which B was. Is. I think. He feels German. Right wing German. Old Prussian We Are the Master Race German. (And I will grovel appropriately if wrong.) I haven't had time today to look closely at all the edits because of the bushfires, but I will. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:18, 7 January 2013 (EST)
==trolling/parody==
I am writing you because of your helpful comments on [[Talk:Main_Page#CBO_just_released_estimates_on_the_.22Fiscal_Cliff.22_Deal]].
That user has gone on to add inaccurate information on a number of articles dealing with the US budget process. He took an accurate article on "spending authority" which last edited in 2008 and redirected it to an article that he had just written called "backdoor spending authority", when I restored the article, he started a thread at [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Spending_authority_vs_Backdoor_spending_authority]] and got the redirect protected. He has gone on to make a number of very inaccurate statements, such as that Presidents do not sign/veto "continuing resolutions" and that the President has not submitted a budget. He confuses spending authority with borrowing authority, etc. This matter requires the attention of senior editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:09, 12 January 2013 (EST)
:I have had suspicions about that user since he made some additions to the LBJ article that were well over the top. After I questioned those additions they received the approval of a senior admin, which kind of shows my place around here. I will take a look and see what I can do. I must say that I am no expert on the inner workings of the US government. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:10, 12 January 2013 (EST)

==More Trolling==

:Hi Damian.
:I have to say I'm quite at a loss for why you recently banned me from editing for a day with an explanation of 'trolling'. Let's look at the events:
:1) In August 2012 I expanded this article from what was basically a stub
:2) Between December 24th and January 5th [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] removed/altered two innocuous examples without explanation (or at least with only the spurious explanation of 'punctuation')
:3) On 27 Jan I reinstated the deleted examples, providing evidence for why they were relevant
:4) On the same day you reverted my changes, still without explanation, and banned me form editing for 24 hours
: So which of us is exhibiting troll-like behaviour? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

==Thanks==
Thanks for the spelling revert, Damian. As one who has been here since 2007, you would think he'd know. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:57, 5 February 2013 (EST)
:I can be persuaded on the spelling business, but the more important point was that there was a lot of important wikification in the edit that should not have been reverted. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:34, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::Yes, I did see that. It was a lazy edit. A scatter-gun approach.
::(PJR had a good comment when reverting US spelling: "Reverting your correct English to my correct English". I thought this had been cleared up in 2007 or 8. Certainly I have not had much trouble recently, and on those rare occasions someone has gone all American on me they have not complained at my revert.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:59, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Block of AugustO ==

I appreciate your concern. But while I have little confidence in Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of physics, he has shown in the past that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AAndyFranklinson he can differentiate between robust statements and insulting language]. He certainly is able to patrol his own talk page - the only problem I could have is that someone takes offense on his behalf. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:37, 14 February 2013 (EST)
:The only thing that concerns me is that you are beginning to sound a bit obsessed. In the big scheme of things it isn't really a big deal that some article on theoretical physics is a bit off. It won't ever change. Andy won't permit that. You keep going on and on assuming that Andy can be swayed by this piece of evidence or that but that relies on a faulty assumption. Andy doesn't care about evidence, he is only interested in what he knows, and he physically can't know anything that contradicts his world view. Don't blame Andy, it is just the way that he is. For whatever reason his mind is completely closed to anything that might be at odds with his truths. That "e=mc2 is liberal claptrap" is just one of those truths. Move onto something else. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:56, 14 February 2013 (EST)

==My mate Oscar==
Had occasion to listen to a great New Zealander today. I have 6 or 7 versions of this on my shelves but Oscar's is still my favourite. See [[Peter Warlock]].
:Oh! And well done with the ODI! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:28, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::Umm cheers. And I was at the ODI. People have been saying that T20 will be the death of the ODI but I don't think so. At least I hope not. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:51, 17 February 2013 (EST)
:::There was a time when the 50-over format got on my goat. These days I tend to have seen the error of my ways. A year or three ago ago Ponting and Clarke came together at 3 for not very much and "built an innings". They grafted and struggled and ran the quick singles and found themselves out of the woods. I found appreciation of the format. (Still a Test bloke though.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:06, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::I tend to be in the distinct minority these days in that I believe the ODI is the best format. I definitely like my tests, particularly the fact that they ebb and flow over a period of 5 days (3 for New Zealand) but its too hard to watch much of them. T20's I find incredibly dull and silly. You simply can't compare a bit of slash dash with all the drama and intrigue of a gripping second innings like yesterdays. ODI is definitely our best format, although I note we are still ranked 8th in them. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:14, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::: It would be interesting to see how a dual T20 (2 innings each, basically ODI/T20 hybrid) international would play out. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:30, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::::::Didn't you guys try that out in your domestic 50 overs competition a few years back? How did it work? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:24, 17 February 2013 (EST)

== Thanks mate ==
DJ, I genuinely do appreciate the fact that you defended me. The funny thing is that I never even realized that I had been blocked before, until that particular conversation on Andy's talk page popped up! I had no clue. Honestly, I can see how ''some'' editors here could consider my actions as "trolling", but I believe this may be due to the way I approach "controversial" issues.

It's not very hard to get out of people WHAT they believe, the trick is figuring out WHY they think that way. So, I have no problem with admins editing entries to include what they believe, but when they don't include the reasons why... it gets my hackles up. I guess everybody has their weaknesses. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:19, 18 February 2013 (EST)
:No worries. I agree with that sometimes senior people here post things that they haven't really considered properly. No need to go overboard on it though, which might have been why you were banned for so long. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)

==DonnyC==
The offending edit in question is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1036893 this]. This kind of relatively mild snark would get a first time offender a warning only, but Donny is no first time offender. Already before the recent block he managed to incur [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADonnyC five blocks] for activities such as trolling, rudeness toward others, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. Notice that even you agreed with me one time that his behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that you did not revoke his block but merely shortened it suggests that your disagreement with me was not about whether or not Donny's behavior was blockowrthy, but only about the length of the block. In light of his past behavior, the only problem I have with the current block is that it's too short. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 03:58, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:That edit is fine. Nothing even remotely wrong with it. They are having a discussion about the correct translation of a particular Hebrew word and Donny has added to it. My shortening of his block should not be read as meaning that I agreed with it even slightly. You appear to have something of a vendetta against DonnyC, and I don't know why, nor do I care. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:18, 27 February 2013 (EST)
::This conversation is over, I have nothing more to say to you after that moronic block you gave me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
:::Good. I want nothing to do with a bully like you. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

==re:DonnyC==
Wait, am I seeing what I think I'm seeing? DamianJohn? On my talk page? I thought he didn't want anything to do with a bully like me... Anyway, Donny earned his ban fair and square. He used a direct insult against Conservative by calling him a conglomerate and accusing him of being deceitful and pretentious. Seeing that he has been given in the past several different blocks from several different users (all blocks were found to be justified), and seeing that I gave him a [[User talk:DonnyC#Warning|warning]] about his incivility before the recent block, a month long ban is quite justified.

However, I'm a willing to make a deal with you. Since I gather you might have more influence on Donny than me, I won't reinstate his ban the next time you overturn it if you'll warn him about engaging in any further acts of incivility. So long as he'll behave he won't need to fear me, but one violation of the rules of the encyclopedia will get him a lifetime ban.

And finally, so far the only complaint Andy had about the blocks I have given was [[User talk:Markman#Great blocks |this]], so I guess I'm doing my job just fine. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:The point is that Conservative is a bit of a playful sysop who enjoys a bit of cut and thrust in argument. He insults people and people insult him back, no harm no foul. If this place were as sterile and as lifeless as you seem to want to make it, even less people would edit here than they currently do. Besides, DonnyC was correct, Conservatives arguments were unsubstantiated non sequitors.
:The even larger point however is that you are interfering in a conversation that does not concern you. Conservative is perfectly capable of blocking Donny if he took offence - you are not the moral arbiter of what is right and wrong with the world.
:On your last point about Andy being happy with your blocks, well he did shorten your last block of Donny to almost nothing, and Karajou fortunately overruled your last attempt at killjoy over the North Pole puns (another example of you picking a fight for no good reason). It may be that you are not as good at picking up on subtext as you think you are.
:Why don't you just relax and not worry at all about things that do not concern you? You keep editing the bible project or whatever it is you like to do, I will keep editing my legal articles when I get a chance and save everyone the aggravation of all these threats which serve no good purpose whatsoever. I think you are reading the guidelines far too literally and strictly. People will only edit here if the environment is enjoyable, and for some reason you seem determined to make the place as unpleasant for everyone as you possibly can. I will have another word with DonnyC if you like. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::Thank you, DamianJohn, for once again taking up my defense. I truly appreciate your efforts, but I no longer wish for you to jeopardize your reputation defending me.
::With that said, I have absolutely no problem following rules. And should I run afoul of those rules, I have no particular qualms with accepting the ramifications of my actions. What I do take issue with is when those rules are not applied universally. In my brief tenure on Conservapedia, I have seen editors routinely insult each other's faith, intelligence, and political ideologies. I have seen editors address each other in disrespectful, mocking, and boastful tones. I have even witnessed an editor threaten another with physical violence (jokingly I'm sure). Yet, none of those incidents met with even a stern warning, much less a block of any duration. Yet engaging in similar (though milder, IMO) banter on my part is routinely met with blocks.
::Again, thanks! --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 18:47, 3 March 2013 (EST)
::@DamianJohn - I'm not blocking people for incivility because I think that they have hurt the feeling of Conservative or any other editor. I'm banning them because such behavior disrupts our goal of developing this encyclopedia, and is also against our site's rules. In regards to the particular debate in hand, whatever you think of his opinions, Conservative didn't utter a single insult during said debate on Talk:Socialism.

::While Andy's shortening of the Donny's block was a supposed to be a compromise between all sides, I think it validated my position more than yours. If Andy had thought that the time during which Donny was blocked was more than enough, he would have revoked the block completely, and yet he didn't. It seems to me like he was more on my side and merely shortened the block in order to appease you.

::About the North Pole affair... you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?

::The reason why I work so diligently on enforcing the guidelines are precisely because I want to contribute to our encyclopedia - I think the guidelines are one of the reasons this site is so great. Our rules help prevent the [[talk pollution]], bickering and liberal bias that prevail over all other wikis. Enforcing the rules is part of my contribution to Conservapedia.

::@DonnyC - in a minute or so I'm going to give you a separate reply on your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:15, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:::('Scuse me, Damian....) Mark; first I am AlanE, Not AlanA. Second...If you count the words on this page from ''"::Again, thanks! --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 18:47, 3 March 2013 (EST)"'' above, you will see there are about 300 - about the same number as the words on Talk:North Pole over 52 months. That is on 21 edits - an average of one every 2 1/2 months! A little good will wouldn't go astray. Cheers. (Thanks Damian.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)
::::The incivility rules do not apply to Conservative. Therefore it is only fair that the incivility rules do not apply to users interacting with Conservative.
::::You are also lying about what happened about the North Pole talk page. You wiped it with some pithy comment about not wanting to encourage unproductive work. So not only are you a bully, you are a liar. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)
:::::? I thought you were trying to be civil for a change? Anyway, yes I did remove the pun exchanges from talk:North Pole and at no point did I deny that. What I was talking about in my previous edit was not the removal of those exchanges, but what led to the temporary deletion of the talk page. After I removed the pun exchanges, Karajou decided to delete the North Pole article as he found out it was a parody article. After that I put the delete template on the talk page because it was now lacking an article.

:::::I don't read every edit Conservative makes so I don't know if there are any instances of him breaking civility laws. However, even if he does break it, this does not justify others doing the same. Incivility generally disrupts whatever productive conversation is going on, is against site's rules, and it's not like anything will happen to the editor/s that are being treated with incivility if they'll simply ignore it. Incivility is not excusable even when carried against previous incivility.

:::::Quite frankly I'm disappointed that you return to name calling after I thought we manged to establish some common ground. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:04, 4 March 2013 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry buddy but that is not true. You said above: " ''you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?''". Your statement is at significant variance with what happened, perhaps you were hoping that we hadn't noticed what you actually did.
::::::Anyway all this is immaterial, your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason. If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:47, 4 March 2013 (EST)
:::::::"I'm sorry buddy but that is not true." Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. If you look at AlanE's talk page you'll find out I said to him the exact same thing I just told you on the very day the whole thing with North Pole happened. Was I trying to obviously lie to him about something he had just witnessed?

:::::::"If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it." You either misunderstood what I was saying or you're deliberately trying to use straw man arguments against me. I never said that I "don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate" I merely said that I hadn't read all that he has written and that regardless it doesn't matter, incivility in retaliation toward previous incivility is still incivility. Notice how you didn't even reply to that point, probably because you can't.

:::::::"your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason." I already replied to you about it, go read it once more.

:::::::Anyway don't bother replying to me as this debate is futile and it just seems like you want to continue arguing with me for no good reason. I won't give you that pleasure and I'm not going to waste my time on this. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)
::::::::There is no need to block every person you think is marginally incivil or marginally in breach of some pedantic rule. For a start that isn't your job and more importantly all it does is drive away contributors, and this place is short of contributors. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:13, 4 March 2013 (EST)
:::::::::Here, read this. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants]] '''"As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response."''' Now try to follow the rules. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Andy is the ultimate authority on this website, meaning that he can make exceptions to the laws. His only criticism of my blocks was for not using the right warning when banning users who violate our policy on usernames, meaning that he's OK with everything else I do. Anyway, from looking at some of the blocks you have given, it is clear that you are not acting as an emergency sysop either. My two favorite examples are DonnyC (oh the irony!) and AugustO, but these are far from the only ones. BTW, if you'll look at some of the blocks given by your friends AlanE and Dvergne, you'll notice that they too are far from acting as emergency sysops. Why won't you go and chastise them a little?

::::::::::I really shouldn't have replied to you but I just find the irony in your previous edit hilarious. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 13:05, 5 March 2013 (EST)

== Block Rights ==

What does it take to get them? [[User:AdeH|AdeH]] 00:37, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:Asking for Block rights is generally the worst way to go about getting them. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:48, 7 March 2013 (EST)

User talk:AlanE

2013-03-07T00:41:39Z

DamianJohn: /* re:referencing */

{{welcome}}

'''Anyone I have banned who wishes to question my decision (or for any other reason) can contact me at alan.carvel@gmail.com'''

In case you weren't aware, typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after a comment automatically produces your signature. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...I'm new in town, so to speak.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: AlanE, thanks for your contributions. I just gave you blocking powers so that you can block the accounts of vandals yourself, as soon as you see them. Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Appreciated. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==
Alan, I think your comments on the monarch categories are good, and would encourage you to fix the categories as you see fit. It seems to me, since this is such a new project, that a lot of things got categorized willy-nilly style (which is understandable), and anything we can do to set things straight, I think it is better sooner than later. I think you'll notice a lot of redundant categorization on some articles too that need cleaned up. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Personally, I would check with a Sysop before doing what Colest is suggesting, especially removal of categories. Okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==Email==

Unless there's a bug in the software, then, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Although we do not require an email address, refusing to supply one is one of several factors which can add up to grounds for banning your account. If you really support the goals of this project, why not take a couple of minutes to create a free yahoo or account and put it in your preferences? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:42, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, check your preferences page. It was changed by Webmaster many months ago. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
**Yes, I see that now, Terry: "E-mail (required): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity."

OK. I will go back and change the email address in my Preferences. Hang on. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed it to the address stated at the bottom of my user page and hit the "Mail confirmation code" even though I never got one. I did get the following though: A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

This wiki requires that you validate your e-mail address before using e-mail features. Activate the button below to send a confirmation mail to your address. The mail will include a link containing a code; load the link in your browser to confirm that your e-mail address is valid.

The above is what I have always received...right from day one. Maybe my geriatric brain is missing something. Ban me if you wish, but it must be obvious by now I am not refusing to supply it. It is sitting there in my User Page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be silly. It's not grounds for banning: Terry says I was wrong. But have you tried this link? http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser/AlanE --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed; but it tells me I need a valid email address!! Perhaps I should go away and come back as someone else... throw off AlanE and don the cloak of, um, how about Guddle. The IP address will be the same, but if I start from scratch, you (CP) will hopefully send me a confirmation code which I can send on its way (rejoicing or not) and I will be legitimate, so to speak. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:You can get a free email address from Yahoo. Send me an email from your new account when you're set up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Alan...get at me on AIM if you have it, mine is on my user page. You need to fill in the box on your preferences here, AND check the box below, to the right! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re Buglar's "debate"==

Bugler; I would qualify for banishment. I am a non-believer in your brand of faith. I also consider myself to be pretty middle of the road in social and political matters, being conservative in some issues and left of centre in others, but certainly do not consider myself Conservative. (In other words I am normal.) I am neither American nor British. I follow the tenets of Christ's teaching and the Commandments without any of the trappings nor the passionate narrowness of orthodoxy of belief that says "we are always right and everyone else is always wrong". I do not attend a church. Too many good and wonderful people have died because that. I am known as a "man of goodwill". I know there are many others like me in Cp. I joined for the sake of the homeschoolers and others who I thought, in my vanity it now seems, might benefit from the breadth of my knowledge and my desire to share it.

Except for a long break enforced by ill-health, I have been editing since early May last year. I work at giving articles in my chosen fields, of a substance that I would have found useful in my teens when I was starting my love affair with history and classical music half a century ago. I believe passionately in historical veracity - and as much as anyone I have repaired the fun and games of historical parodists and mistakes as I have found them. (I fixed two blatant pieces of misinformation yesterday…both well over a year old.)
Go through my edits and you will see what I mean. I am actually trying to create a viable encyclopedia.

I know I am blowing my own trumpet, Bugler (um), but there is a reason - there are a lot of us here that are doing this sort of graft, many of whom would qualify for banishment under your “proposal”. More and more, Conservapedia is becoming a blog, and less “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” – your proposal would finish that process.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Notice ==

We need to close night editing early tonight. Hope to see you early tomorrow morning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== Portuguese names ==

Ok, I will review some of the Portuguese names. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
==Trade winds==
You're welcome...BTW, be sure to make comments on people's TALK page, the user page is for personal use. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 10:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Composers ==

Be my guest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:22, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks...you may notice Chabrier has just arrived. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Strauss ==

Some works are now lost. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== I hope you enjoyed your breakfast ==

I was not implying that you did not contribute to this encyclopaedia and apologise for giving that impression. The guilt lies elsewhere. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, I did. And thank you for this note.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Schumann ==

What is wrong with the pic?
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh 'ell! Sorry! I think I must have edited an old page. Um. If you want to revert it to your last edit, I'll do my last edit again in the morning....''Carefully'' this time. Sorry again. Gulp. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sergei Prokofiev ==

Good work. Clap, Clap...!

Only a favor; Please save the valuable material that is already posted. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT
::Why? I made sure everything of value was transferred into my post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Alfred Schnittke ==

How about an article on Alfred Schnittke?

You may use if you like: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/schnopus.htm

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:48, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's one from left field! I have some of his, but usually paired with Shostakovitch and the like. Viola I think. I'll have a go. Not today. I'm already late with the day's chores.
:::And I want you to think about the Prokofiev page. The double up looks a bit silly, seeing as pretty-well all the information parts of your edit are now repeats of mine. I may be back before 2pm (my time) but I doubt it. (You don't want to have a word with Andy about that do you?) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::The repeated pieces could be just a few but not all, and users sometimes prefer to have the cake sliced. So my advice is to have that section as it is now. I admire your work and hope this will encourage you to do your best. Andy, I am sure will be glad to hear from you, please go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::::Ok and G'morning. (It's too early to say g'day.) Give me a few days to listen to Schnittke. He's not the sort the family would like to have filling the house at all hours so I have to be on my own. He's not easy listening, but neither is Shostakovitch whom I adore!
BTW. The "''...will encourage you to do your best''" is a tad off. I left school nearly 50 years ago!
Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brit==
Hehe, I was hoping that no one would notice me attempting to change the British spellings. Good thing you didn't rev the whole edit. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 15:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:I was in the middle of a grump when the above came in. And why shouldn't I have a bet each way on refering/referring? BTW...what was the point of putting a single very alone reference under "References"? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchs==
Thanks for taking up the challenge to complete the red-links in the English Monarchs navbar. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I'll get there in the end...I'm on other things for a while (suffering from a surfeit of Ethels) but I'll be back to them. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:30, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

==Redirects==

I commented on the music page you edited, but just so you know, it's always better to link to the actual page (where possible) than to link to a redirect, just because redirects can be broken, and they are harder to fix then straight links. That is, if the National Association of How To spell set out a new rule that Bach should be spelled Back, you can make one change (on the actual page with the data), and not have to worry about all the redirects. otherwise, you manually have to rewrite a bunch of redirect pages. It does mean spelling out the whole name "J.S. Bach|Bach", but in the long run, it's "better". Or so the world says. grins. --JeanJacques 18:04, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Christopher Wren ==

Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:I was thinking about the big gap between 2nd and 14th centuries overnight...but all I could remember was Henry Yvele (or Yevele) who did some of the Perpendicular stuff. (Canterbury Cathedral at least.) I think he was 14th century though. I will chase down the fella who built Edward I's Welsh castles - he's in the back of my mind somewhere but refuses to peek out. I have half a mind on it whilst I do private stuff. If I think of anyone I'll put it on the "Famous Architects" talk page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: Please do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:46, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have already...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== !!!! ==

Oi!

Leave my edit to scottish monarchs alone, i put the link around the dates for a reason you know!!!!
thanks a lot for making me loads of extra work! :( --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Or shall i put it simply, LEAVE IT ALONE!!! (i know about your work on some scottish monarchs, and i agknowledge them, dont worry.) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:Smile and say please when you say that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:: -sigh- :) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:34, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::: I aim to have this list complete by the end of the week , so please dont interfere until the list is complete, then please (note: please) do either tell me on my talk page, or on the scotland talk page if you want to take bits off it, thanks--[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:39, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==List==

====Monarchs of Scotland====
*[[Malcolm II]] (1005-1034)
*[[Duncan I]] (1034-1040)
*[[Macbeth]] (1040-1057)
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1093-1094)
*[[Duncan II]] (1094)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1094-1097)
*[[Edgar]] (1097-1107)
*[[Alexander I]] (1107-1124)
*[[David I]] (1124-1153)
*[[Malcolm IV]] (1153-1195)
*[[William (The Lion)]] (1165-1214)
*[[Alexander II]] (1214-1249)
*[[Alexander III]] (1249-1286)
*Margaret ([[Maid of Norway]]) (1286-1290)
*[[John Baliol]] (1292-1296)
*Robert I (Robert Bruce]]) (1306-1329)
*[[David II]] (1329-1371)
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II]] (1371-1390)
*[[Robert III]] (1390-1406)
*[[James I]] (1406-1437)
*[[James II]] (1437-1460)
*[[James III]] (1460-1488)
*[[James IV]] (1488-1513)
*[[James V]] (1513-1542)
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI]] (1567-1625) ([[James I]] of England (1603-1625)

The problem now is I can't seem to link Edgar...It may need an official disambiguation page. If I were more computer literate..... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't pollute a talk page ==

Don't pollute a talk page with a personal attack, like what you just did on [[Talk:Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I quote:''We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.''

''The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." BHarlan 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)''

In my eyes, that is also a personal attack. I also consider that BHarlan's edits are, in the main, not particularly encyclopedic. That is my opinion only of course. I suppose I get a bit crabby at people who come and spend nearly all their time on variations on the same theme whilst I am getting up at four in the morning to find the time to do what I do here...which is 99point something per cent true encyclopedic. Can you deny I am trying to actually build an encyclopedia. If you think I am unproductive then ban me. if you agree I am productive then please give me at least some of the same leeway you extend to those you agree with. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: AlanE, in hockey the third person who enters a fight is ejected. You jumped into a dispute with your own personal attack. Don't pollute a talk page like that.

: Moreover, BHarlan's comment was informative and appropriate. I found HGridley's prior comment to be offensive, despite my warning.

: Your substantive edits are appreciated. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And don't feel bad about being singled out as a 'polluter'. Often we choose to speak to the person who has shown the greatest maturity, so a person who is already setting a good example can show an even better one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Clausell ==

Thank you!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Artists ==

Done, thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank ''you''! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:: AlanE, please, who are those two great composers that are left? I am planing to have two composers sections to have classical along. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::Brahms and Handel are usually considered right up there at the top.
:Film composers are a funny breed...they use the classical idiom, but its usually up to a century old. The battle scene at the start of "Gladiator" is so much like "Mars" from "The Planets" that it must be a template. The last battle in "Troy" harks back to the "Battle on the Ice" scene in Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky". The main phrase in the scene where Superman takes Lois for a fly in the first Superman movie, is a direct pinch from a phrase near the end of Richard Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration". They are very good at their job, but they are not "great" composers in the true sense of the word. Good, if not great composers have written film scores of course...Prokofiev, Shostakovich, William Walton, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Korngold, etc. (And did you know that the first music written specifically for a film was by Saint Saens?) but they were classical composers before they went near films.

Cole Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Mercer, etc. were great but they were not "classical". They need their own classification. When popular composers try and write something classical (like Meredith Wilson's symphonies, or Leroy Anderson's piano concerto) it never quite gets there. I can think of only one who sits comfortably as a true classical composer whilst feted also in the popular idiom and that Leonard Bernstein. I will now go back into my hole. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:02, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. I like Brahms and Händel, but are they as famous as Chopin? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)

G'morning, Joaquín. Chopin wrote just for the piano. Apart from a couple of piano concertos and a cello sonata that is all he is known for....solo piano music. Some of the best ever written and much of it of an emotional intensity that can grab you. And for that - as well as for a strange sort of relationship with a strange sort of woman (George Sands) - he has grabbed the imagination of the public's attention (and Hollywood's) as one of the "great" composers. Which he is...''for the piano''.

Handel is known as one of the top 2 high baroque composers. People say "Bach and Handel" in the one breath - he is that good. Completely different in temperament and style in his output of course - he made and lost fortunes writing for the stage. But posterity owes him as much for his concerti grossi, organ concertos, chamber works, the two suites for augmented military band that have come down to us as the ''Water Music'' and ''Fireworks Music'' (one of which caused the first recorded traffic jam in history) his anthems and other church music, keyboard music - the lot. He is a part of every British coronation: and Christmas and Easter would not be the same in the English speaking countries without the enumerable ''Messiahs'' popping up, not only in concert halls but churches and town halls, and parks - many of them amateur productions. Grass roots stuff. I bet you that you can hum more Handel tunes than any other classical composer. He is part of the fabric of western culture right down to the farmer who turns up at his church hall to rehearse a bit of Handel for the service on Sunday.

As is Brahms, but in a different way. Brahms ain't "popular". Just great. When I say popular I mean amongst the general classical-illiterate public. And he is not for the young....you seem to grow into Brahms with age. He is recognised, though, as one of the truly great composers of "pure music"; that is music not written to a program. He is also considered the true symphonic heir to Beethoven. Like Bach and Handel mark the peak of the high baroque, and Beethoven the classical era, Brahms represents the pinnacle of the Romantic period. After him the movement started breaking up. He wrote four of the 20 great symphonies, two of the twenty great piano concertos, one of the top 4 violin concertos; he is one of the top 5 most popular writers of chamber music. His "Requiem" is in the top 5. He is one of the top four 19th century song composers. Pianists enjoy his many short piano pieces. He is second to none as a writer of "variations". When he died there was a state funeral and procession through the streets of Vienna attended by foreign heads of state...not to mention scores of thousands of ordinary citizens.

Are you sorry you asked? If you're going to hit me at 4:30 in the morning with something close to my heart.... :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Excellent Alan, a very rich dissertation! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks again! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Ship ==

Done, it has been a pleasure my friend! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy Holiday ==

The same to you my dear friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas! ==

Merry Christmas!----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:02, 25 December 2008 (EST)>>>
:....And to you, Philip. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:22, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Categories ==

Please only use the subcategory and not the categories above it when applying categories to articles. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Um...I gather the problem is with Wars of the Roses. Which Cat. should I not have put it under? I wanted it to be clickable from all three categories. HNY. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:17, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Scotland's History==
What's your opinion of that Neil Oliver series on TV at the moment? [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:40, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:Mate... I'm writing from wildest Tasmania. We're still watching Hamish Macbeth down here (albeit for the third time). If its not tabloid, I will look forward to it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Ah... if it gets on to BBC World (if indeed that is still going) you might give it a go. As a staunch (if adopted) Northumbrian I like to see what the neighbours are up to! [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Your work ==

Nice to see such a good work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Joaquín. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

::Indeed, Alan, your help in untangling Scotland hasn't gone unnoticed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yes..t'was a bit out of ''kilter''. (Ahem) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:32, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia:[[Featured articles]] ==

Dear friend. You are invited to participate in: [[Conservapedia:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:23, 1 March 2009 (EST)

:Thank you Joaquín; it is appreciated - but for all your kindness, I don't think any of my articles are good enough, or the ones that may be would not be of sufficient interest. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 1 March 2009 (EST)

: I think some of your articles should be considered. But I prefer to have you select one or two as you know them better than any other. Please? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::Um. Let me think....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:48, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Umm, waiting! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::::G'day, Joaquín. From the various comments on the Featured Articles talk page, I had gained the impression that those such as I were not likely to be welcomed so had stopped thinking about it. And frankly, I tend to think my articles are unsuited - wrong spelling, not enough references etc because usually I write from my own knowledge, I don't touch America, I don't follow any ideological line (as much as anyone can), I write to the old-fashioned reference book format without great lines and headings taking the eye away from the text and my articles tend to read as much like essays as wiki articles. Ya know wha' I mean? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:02, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps it would be beneficial if you stopped with the supposition? You were invited to participate first, and then my friend Joaquín brought up the subject of including some of your own articles. Two separate ideas. The main thing that is/was happening with "Featured Articles" is that the original idea was to have a committee decide, not some community vote, as that always leads to parodists and trolls disrupting, and that is why I locked the page. And if you are participating, I will certainly unlock it. The page needs further tweaks to make clear other's suggestions should be on the talk page, and only member's should vote. I hope you will choose to help out, all of us do, but of course that is your decision, Alan. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
:Okay. If I can help I will. Thanks. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:10, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== From a new musician/editor on CP ==

Hi AlanE! I've just made some substantial changes to the "Arnold Schoenberg" article. The history of his stylistic evolution was a little inaccurate, in that the 12-tone phase didn't start until after 1923. This means also that "Pierrot Lunaire" was actually part of his "free atonal" period. If you think this needs a reference to back it up, I'd be happy to find one. Cheers! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:59, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:No problems. (I think.) I am not an atonal fan so I probably tend to lump atonal and 12-tone together somewhat in my brain. I think though that he had the 12-tone down pat by 1923 having worked on it on the quiet (if that is not an oxymoron) for the previous 8 or so years.
::One thing, though. I am protective of my British (Aussie actually} spelling. :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:::As you have every right to be! Just to be clear, Schönberg wrote "On the composition with 12-tones" in 1923, and his first compositions to utilise it were published in the same year. There were several years of development, as Schönberg makes clear in his article, but the first evidence appears in this year.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Sorry, the article was published in 1941. My bad.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 20:00, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Blimey, mate! No! Alan, do you see a citation about the 12-tone phase? I don't. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Just added one, TK.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Terry, in the biography net reference under 1923 it is alluded to sufficiently clearly for me to be satisfied I suppose...... ''"Introduces a “Method of Composing with Twelve Tones Which are Related Only with One Another”, which revolutionizes the traditional concept of harmony by means of a new classification of musical material and therewith lays »the foundations for a new procedure in musical construction which seemed fitted to replace those structural differentations provided formerly by tonal harmonies.« (»Composition with Twelve Tones« 1941)"'' That's what I based my acceptance on. Thanks. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Ahh, so it is only a matter of making the citation line note that specific section, so as not to present the reader with an endless scroll, not knowing where to look. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:I'd be happy to do that, if I knew how. Is there a place in the help section that explains this?[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:37, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

::If you added the reference by using the ref deal, add the URL within it, and after the end of it, make a space, and add the comment that Alan did, would be easy enough. Like: [www.xyz1234.com Under 1923, it says "Introduces a “Method of Composing with Twelve Tones Which are Related Only with One Another]. That help? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:05, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Sure, thanks.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:50, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Something completely different, AlanE. I'm interested in adding images as musical examples to some of the musical terms pages. Would you help me with this?[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Attended. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:10, 17 March 2009 (EDT) Thanks!![[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:12, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry to be late answering. I was late logging on this morning (It's a little after 6AM here.) I'm also sorry that I can't help with uploading pictures...there are certain protocols and restrictions and I have never really tried to find out. (Though one day I must, if I am still around) Go to Help Index on the left there. Also[[:User talk:Joaquín Martínez]] is a senior sysop who loves his pictures and is usually helpful. Mention my name ;).[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:27, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the advice. By the way, I just left a note for you under the Prokofiev article.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:37, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Just seen it, thanks. Gotta go. Have appointments.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:43, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Your thoughtful response in the Prokofiev thread got me reading again (dangerous hobby, I know), and revisiting the old books about music in the Soviet Union. I've started to expand the Shostakovich article, and am interested in your feedback. I plan to do the same with Prokofiev, and even perhaps write an essay on the topic. Let me know what you think.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Just for fun==
Good morning. I added a "trivia" section to [[J.S. Bach]], including an amazing story that my doctoral advisor just told me. Thought you'd appreciate it, being a history buff yourself. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:24, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks; enjoyed it. I've always found it interesting that Beethoven considered Handel to be the greater of the two. Then again how many know Louis Spohr who was considered at the time to be greater than Beethoven?
:I am about to let loose with St. Matthew Passion. Please do with it as you will. I know you can improve it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:10, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ahh, yes, I should probably mention it on the page too, but Von Swieten also brought Handel with him to Vienna; I had a hard time working it in in a relevant way. The quote from Mozart's letter to his father is something to the effect of "I go often to Swieten, where only Bach and Handel are played." My personal theory is that Beethoven was too close to Bach to effusively praise him -- a father complex, maybe?? My dissertation (still in the research phase) actually will discuss how Beethoven inherited several of his ideas about [[key]] characteristics from the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Mass, and the Passions.
::Ahh, Spohr. That's where weasel words get their name. Of course he "was considered" to be greater than Beethoven at one time, but by whom? Tovey writes about Spohr dismissively (in ''The Main-Stream of Music and Other Essays'', a great book if you happen upon it) by saying that his examples of sonata form, and only his and Hummel's, embody perfectly the academic definition of sonata form, and this is where many theorists got the wrong idea. You will find no examples from Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven in sonata form as we learn at the conservatories. Conservatism always finds an enthusiastic audience.
::It's also worth remembering that Beethoven's late works disturbed all but his most ardent supporters. Out of the romantics, no one until Wagner felt sympathy enough to champion them: if you want to do some fun influence-spotting, listen to the slow movement of Beethoven's Op. 127, and immediately after that the duet from Act II of ''Tristan'' ("O sink hernieder, Nacht der Liebe"). [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:19, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::Oh duhh! I forgot that I actually mentioned Handel! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:23, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I think the last time I read somewhere of the "greatness" of Spohr (and please realise that my comment above was sarcastic - ''of course'' Spohr had no viable claim of greatness) was in a comment about [[Charles Villiers Stanford]] who said once that he could remember when Spohr was considered such. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

==St. Matthew Passion==
I've done my thing with it, and am quite happy with it as it stands momentarily -- though I still might like to add a section on famous recordings. Take a look and see what you think.
It also could use a nice image, perhaps some artwork appropriate for the subject. I'll give a holler to Joaquin about it.
[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:It's excellent, and shows scholarship!
:As far as famous recordings go, I am looking into them. (And yes, I'll mention Sir Georg's! - fancy having Kiri and Anne Sophie on the same bill. And if the sound is anything like his 1981 Mahler "Resurrection".......)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:11, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::Glad you like the additions. It was a fun way to spend my afternoon. Joaquin has added several pictures per my request, and also nominated it as a Featured Article.
::The Solti recording is pretty special, and one that both sides of the "authentic performance" argument could find something to like and something to disparage. My only quibble is that Blochwitz as the Evangelist gets a little screechy for my taste. One particlar pregnant pause (and the crashing organ chord that comes after) in "Sind Blitze, Sind Donner" is one of my top 10 favorite moments on any disc period.
::By the way, also notice that I un-reddened the Category:Musical Works, which now only contains the Messiah (still unfortunately a stub) and this page. Just letting you know, in case you know of other pages that might fit. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Just saw your new "recordings" section, and am thrilled! I'm glad that you added some perspective and opinion to this section, so that anyone interested enough to run out and buy a recording could have an idea of the issues with Baroque recordings in general. I fixed a few spelling things, but otherwise agree with the inclusions. I might have added Klemperer's to the list myself. My only other point is that it might be better to also name the orchestras involved instead of just the conductors. It could get cumbersome to list everything, but in most cases it's useful information for someone seeking out the recording. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:32, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:Will do [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

Sorry he was acting out this morning....highly unlike him, actually, unlike me! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:39, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Terry - it's not that. I'm a dog lover from way back, and they occasionally make a mess. It's everything else. ''You'' know I'm not a vandal. So does JM. So do every senior Admin I've spoken to.

::Except Andy.

Yesterday, I not only did a word count of my edits, I did a word count of the, um, "non-opinion" edits of various others. Even Jpatt's hagiographies didn't come close to the amount of new input I had done that month. In fact, if you take away the copy-and-pastes of countries and art and US ships and that sort of thing, I have probably contributed more new old-fashioned encyclopedic uncontroversial information to this site than any other editor. If you go just a day either side of the offending "athletics" to "sports" edit, (24rd, I think) I did major new articles totalling over 1500 words.
:I made my night-editing request so I had more time to do more work. That's all. No other reason. After all, midnight there is 2PM here in September (and now). I was amazed when I couldn't get it. I was even more amazed at the reason - which I only found out recently, and which made me angry, for obvious reasons.
:Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

::Well, I am in the dark about that, so perhaps it isn't true, but not the place to discuss such things, so email me, if you want. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:04, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

::: According to what I have learned from your edits, you have helped Conservapedia in an important way. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:05, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Thank you, Joaquín! - [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:47, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

"Your considerable efforts might be more appreciated at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 18 April 2009 (EDT)"

==Restoring page==
This block expired in April <s>2011</s> 2010; I have no idea why the user page was deleted. Sorry for the inconveniece. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:07, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Look who is back! ==

How've you been? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:47, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Wes!!
::Hanging on in there. I think I owe you a Christmas greeting or three. Went away a bit for a while there. Good to see your greeting! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:05, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== British Inventions page ==

Thanks for your contributions! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:38, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. It's fun. I was adding a few when you wrote. Brits haven't invented the '''really''' important things, though - the stubby cooler, the cardboard wine cask and beach cricket, all of which can be seen together on a warm weekend arvo. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:24, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

== oops ==

Yeah I know he was, seems I forgot to put that bit back, sorry ! --[[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 21:56, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
:No problem - go Webber! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:58, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations! Your account has been promoted to night editing, blocking and SkipCaptcha.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

== Free Speech ==

By the way that debate you remembered me having on free speech is here. [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]] I had forgotten about it, but having read it again I stand behind everything I said. Gotta take your lumps, good and bad, otherwise you haven't got free speech. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:30, 7 November 2012 (EST)

:So you should. There is a small problem though for me... there is common or garden civility, decency, empathy, whatever. "''I know it's his funeral, Mrs Smith, but your husband really was a cheating cad''" is not the way to go and this can be extended to political discourse. Whilst those bastards at Westboro should have the right under law to do the hurt that they do, there is no way I will accept their moral justification. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:27, 7 November 2012 (EST)
::Yes. I think that is a given, but perhaps it should be spelled out explicitly. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:25, 7 November 2012 (EST)
:::I have not the facility, these days, of speller-outery ( a reference to my much missed mother who considered herself a "looker-upperer" way into her nineties and used me (per telephone) in her later years as her main reference source.) I think, mate, that you can extract from the bones of my statement above that I do not agree with the use of malice in a political statement - though my grumgy-old-manliness can be frequently construed as such. Unfortunately these days, my knowledge exceeds my ability to expound it appropriately. Luckily. I usually wander the outer reaches of the CP galaxy where few of the more political, or overtly religious, editors go. Or if they do, they haven't the faintest interest in what I am talking about. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:44, 8 November 2012 (EST)

== Request ==
This request is in ignorance, but as you are currently logged on, I was hoping you might unlock [[Karl Rove]] so I might made the additions mentioned on the talk page. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 21:55, 8 November 2012 (EST)
: Only Sysop's can protect and unprotect pages. I suggest you ask Karajou, Ed Poor, JPatt, Aschafly or Conservative to unlock the page [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]]
::Thank you for your advice. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 22:07, 8 November 2012 (EST)

==Attention Dvergne==

Is that a Gallic way of answering a question or is it too much FourX? Or you're engrossed in the cricket? Deleting my question and answering in the summary is not polite. Even for a FNQer. :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 8 November 2012 (EST)

== Block ==

What was that for ? Because of that I couldn't block those vandals and had to spend more time cleaning the mess up. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 21:56, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Settle down! Read my next edit and be amazed I had the sense of humour to say to you what I did. You used inappropriate language, OK? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:03, 17 November 2012 (EST)

== Blocking users for username ==

Alan when you block a user for his or her username, your edit summary indicates that they are allowed to recreate their account with an appropriate username, but the block settings you're using are preventing them from doing that. Make sure all boxes are unchecked as to not prevent account creation or block the IP.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:24, 28 November 2012 (EST)
:Will do. {{unsigned|AlanE}}
:: I think the block that Aaln gave for the user called Adm1nistrator was perfectly reasonable as that user would have almost certainly either been a troll or a vandal. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 00:50, 28 November 2012 (EST)
:::Thanks D. What Iduan has done, though, has made me aware of the varieties involved in the blocking policies. I had not really thought about it before. ...But thanks. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:57, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for putting in the good word for me. Alas, I won't have much time in the future to hang around here. And helping to police the place is not really something I'm good at or interested in. The vandal of attack or December 30, and my being in the middle of it, was just a freak accident.

I was amused by your characterization of "swinging lustily". Though that's not what it felt like. :-) [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:56, 1 January 2013 (EST)

:No problem, Judy. Best wishes for your future. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:42, 2 January 2013 (EST)

== Help needed to correct articles ==

Hello Alan,

I started correcting the entries so they don't look as if most of Europe was Eastern Europe. It should look like that: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/638/ciaeuroperegions.png/sr=1
unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg

and not during the communist period of Central Europe and Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/focuson/film/images/activities/cold-war/europe-cold-war.png

Therefore, I may need your help to correct mistakes, if they apply. Most of the time, when people mean Eastern Europe, they mean Central Europe.

Would you be willing to help?

:Sure, no problem.
:(Sorry I'm late in replying - your request arrived at about the same time as a group of friends and their neighbours forced to evacuate their homes because of bushfire smoke. Some were asthmatics. (Even here, 50 miles away as the raven flies (we don't have crows in Tasmania) things are blurry and there is no far horizon.)
:Where are you? Approximately I mean. I ask because the very question of the definitions of the parts of Europe can be one of perception, including historical perception. I'm complicating things, so I'll shut up for the moment. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:51, 5 January 2013 (EST)

==Dashes etc.,==
::Technically, there are standards dictating when to use minus signs, em-dashes, and en-dashes. What rules do you want to follow? For example, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Dash#Dashes.2C_hyphens.2C_and_minus_signs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DASH#Dashes A user who nit-picks over such details probably should not be blocked for compulsive editing. :-) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:12, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:::I blocked him for a day - half of which he will probably be asleep - and the other half I will be. Dash. Yes Dash I know (sort of) the rules of punctuation dash I am a hyphen man myself dash but this bloke is filling up the "recent changes" far worse than Ken or dash more recently dash OscarO ever did dash does. As I said to Karajou dash if it gets to the colon we have a real problem. (Wait 'til you get to my age.)
:::Do you know what gets me, Wschact? It is dash I can write thousands of words of sodashcalledendashcyclopedic words on this site and never get a mutter from anyone dash but as soon as I ban someone for a bloody day dash someone pops up and has a shot at me. If you want to talk about this dash go to my gmail. I am a lot friendlier there. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:53, 31 January 2013 (EST)

== Australian Sports ==

That was a pretty shocking report on Aussie sport the other day. It looks like the AFL and the NRL are dirty. And then there was the SBW fiasco on Friday night. I am starting to wonder if any sport can be taken seriously these days. I see that rugby hasn't been specifically mentioned, but one would have to be naive to think drugs and match fixing weren't prevalent there as well. It would explain the recent form of the Wallabies... (at least we know they aren't taking any performance enhancing drugs...) :) --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 06:25, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:Morning Damian. Yeah, its a worry and very very disappointing. Not entirely surprising though. Like the winter sniffles there's a lot of it going around. As they clean up one thing another takes off. Too many muscle-bound oafs with wallets bigger than their brains being told how important they are and how the finances are more important than the results. And it's not a team any more - its a franchise - so the old loyalty angle is no more. So many sportsmen are now mercenaries.
:I think Rugby's okay. I think Anglo cricket is okay (but needs watching.) At least we know about Indian bookmakers now - we realise the ubiquity of the problem on the sub-continent. (BTW I had a nasty thought or two last week when I saw that Pakistan were skittled for 49 in SA.) The last major team sport to go under will be Rugby because of its culture and if it does, it won't be your mob because of the culture within the culture - the utter pride in being an All Black and the knowledge of the country's pride in you. (Take that as a national and personal compliment.)
:As for the Wallabies: I thought their last half dozen games were excellent considering their injuries. I saw somewhere a list of the run-on side against the Pumas in Argentina against a list of Wallabies unable to play because of injury. The injured "side", on paper, was stronger than the fit one. Pocock, Rocky, Genia, Beale, Mitchell, O'Connor, Cooper and so on. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:46, 10 February 2013 (EST)
::As a kiwi, all I can say is that I hope and pray that Cooper recovers fully and is fit and selected for every game against the All Blacks. :) Speaking as an Australasian, I think that there has been a slightly arrogant attitude from the sporting public here that our sportsman are clean. I remember people saying how great it was that there was a clean winner of the tour de France after Cadel Evans won - as if he couldn't be dirty because he's one of us. Personally I have my doubts about the Aussie swimming team, some of our rowers and even Valerie Adams. I think we have been incredibly naieve and we will have our comeuppance. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:49, 10 February 2013 (EST)
::Heading out the door - will speak later.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:::Son's 26th. Took daughter to get cake ingredients (incl. NZ chocolate.) It's good to have an expert cake-maker in the family.
:::I think Cooper's heading back to League. Had a hissy fit a coupla months ago about his treatment by the ARU. I think Cadel is clean - he came up nice and slowly, was there or thereabouts for a few years, never did anything spectacular, rode for various teams, got his act together with good support riders for that win, then age started to tell. As far as the Aust. swim team is concerned I don't know. I don't think there is institutionalised cheating but that may be inbuilt patriotic denial. The boys' failure in London was a lack of commitment - they were having a good time. Shot putters are like weight lifters - it's almost a given that there is dirt not too far away.
:::You can read too much into things. I have watched the odd Six Nations game recently. I saw Italy beat France, various teams beat Scotland, then Scotland beat Italy. There is something suspicious there, but only if you want to there to be. (Like turning off the lights to aid the 49ers.)
:BTW Ricky's still at it - hit 200 not out a few days ago against NSW. And Watson's back - thumped the Windies around for 121 in 111 balls. (But I won't mention Saturday at Eden Park. :)) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:00, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:: It seems rugby is pretty clean as seen [http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/02/11/spiro-aussie-sports-darkest-day-has-become-even-murkier/ HERE]. Netball and V8SC seem to be the cleanest sports now! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 20:00, 10 February 2013 (EST)
:::Not sure about Netball. There's a pill on the market that gives women the powers of those Angel Statues in Doctor Who. The guard blinks and the player with the ball is suddenly half a metre closer to the net without seeming to have moved. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:19, 10 February 2013 (EST)

==RE:SergeiforCROY==
Googled "sergeifor", couldn't find any instances of that name other than clear typos in which someone forgot to put a space between "Sergei" and "for". The fact that second part of his username is written in allcaps also suggests a troll. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:27, 22 February 2013 (EST)

:First: please do not use my user page - it is what it says: AlanE:User page.
:If you had Googled Karajou on the day he joined CP, would you have found him? Or, using an example of name and place: Gregkochuconn. It's a matter of goodwill, that's all - benefit of the doubt - generosity of spirit - assuming innocence until otherwise persuaded. All that sort of stuff. It all depends on your attitude - you want him to be troll (which he may be.) Ban him for a time to clarify his intentions (if he wants do so,) but you're leaving him with no wish to do so. But I am liberal "vermin", so what do I know? :) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:10, 22 February 2013 (EST)

==RE:Harold etc==
Look, I am not the one who made this site's rules (although I do support and identify with them and will vigorously uphold them), I'm just here to enforce them, and the fact is that HaroldWest was in dire violation of the 90/10 rule by the time I contacted him (I'm glad that he decided to start contributing afterwards). Most other wikis are rampant with [[talk pollution]] and we don't want the same thing happening to our encyclopedia.

As for the idea that Conservapedia's user base lacks courtesy, I couldn't disagree with you any further. Granted, new users are somewhat treated with suspicion, but that's simply because we are under constant attack from vandals coming from another website which is not worthy of being mentioned here. Once a person proves that he's not a vandal and not a troll he's warmly welcomed by the site's administrations. There was not even a single time in which any of admins treated with anything other than respect.

I also don't see how you came up with the idea that there's an abuse of power by the admins and users with blocking rights. Other than that one instance when a user with blocking rights turned out to be a troll and blocked me and several admins (he was quickly reverted) I haven't seen even one example of abuse of power on this website. What would any one even gain by abusing his power anyway? It's not like anybody is making money from editing Conservapedia or can extract favors from other users. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 21:12, 23 February 2013 (EST)
:Just block the obvious vandals and leave the rest up to the sysops. I remember you blocked someone for something that someone said to Aschlafly. Do you really think that he can't look after himself? The place has evolved somewhat since you were last here in July, we don't just block willy-nilly anymore. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:45, 23 February 2013 (EST)
::Notice that this discussion does not even pertain to any specific ban, just to a certain misunderstanding me and AlanE had on another user's talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 February 2013 (EST)
:::Fair enough. Lets encourage as many contributors to stay as we can, even if they are not perfect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:52, 23 February 2013 (EST)
::::And here I was having a day off. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:55, 23 February 2013 (EST)

==re:Conservative Bible Project==
Why do you stay stuff like that? I'm sure Meredith will be overjoyed to have a Conservative translation which is far superior to all modern liberal translations of the Bible :) - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 00:32, 28 February 2013 (EST)
:Because Meredith is a woman; one who is proud to be a woman and treated like a woman and loved as a woman and a daughter. At the same time she is happy to be, with her elder brother, one of our '''children''' although she is 22. My wife and I have two children, Markman: a son and a daughter. Not two sons.
:That particular change to the CBP is change for change's sake; there is no way there is a "Liberal" or "Conservative" slant to it. I don't agree with it... the phrase ''"the children of Israel"'' is one of the the most evocative iconic descriptive phrases in all the Bible - only an utter idiot would think for one second that "children" in that context would mean the young.
:I'm getting on, Markman, but I am a "child of my time", old fashioned in many ways, and I don't like my beautiful English language played with for for petty reasons. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Come on mate, cheer up. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:13, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::: OK. Make a contribution to [[Talk:North Pole]] and I'll try. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:19, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::::Wow! A wretched hive of 90/10 offenders. Officer Markman is on the way with the ban<s>hammer</s>baton. Good work mate, you make a good CI. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:24, 28 February 2013 (EST)
:::::I'll take that as an indication you can't think of anything, can I? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::::::Take it as an indication that I'm trying to have a little laugh you. Gee, it's true what they say 'bout you liberals not having a sense of humor... - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:12, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::::::: I am trying to get you to try a bit of ''my'' humour. The North Pole humour is silly but harmless, and a damn sight less spiteful or malicious than that I find emanating from certain Conservapedians. It is why I try and keep it going. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:34, 28 February 2013 (EST)

==North Pole==
I half expected that, Markman, but only half because I gave you the benefit of the doubt on petty malice. Typical I suppose that you should run to teacher. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:11, 1 March 2013 (EST)
:Sorry pal, but it was in blatant violation of site's policies. Besides, Karajou deleted North Pole on his own initiative after seeing it without any prompting from me. I put the delete template on the talk page only after the article was deleted. Why should a talk page stay lying around after its article is gone? Anyway, if you want to humor yourself, I suggest [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omYH2MFEERw this vid]. It reminds me of you and me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 13:20, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Sorry if there was some sort of confusion here, but the article that was deleted was not to end a "talkfest", but to remove something that was deliberately created to be a parody by a blocked user some years ago, and no one picked up on it until today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::: To Karakou: I don't suppose that I can be allowed to do one of my standard Evans articles on North Pole so that the talk page can be returned. I am pretty sure that you knew about the talkpage - you do tend to check all my edits, and certainly TK in the old days let it go. I understand you have to be politic but I still had a few puns to go. :) (Now I will save the edit I was addressing to Markman when your edit above arrived.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::To Markman: Yes. I know "Tommy". I might even still have the LP. (Minutes pass) No, it didn't survive the Tropics. I only have "Who Are You", which is much later and the climate cooler. It is your sort of humour isn't it. Someone discomforted.
::::I cannot believe K. didn't know that talkpage. I know he checks my edits - when I step over the line the hand of K. appears and my edit disappears. Andy, however, might not have seen it previously and it was probably Andy you ran to. And ''of course'' he would back you - you agree with him even when you don't have a clue what they're talking about. "Blatant violation"? Perhaps. But minor, good-natured, harmless and ideology-neutral. Six words a month. That's one word for every 4000 I averaged during the months I edited them. It's a pity it's gone because I still had a few left.
::::I found out one thing, though. You can't pun. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::LOL I didn't ran to nobody - I simply put the delete template on talk page. Now admittedly Andy was the one who deleted it but it was merely by chance, it could have been any one of the sysops. But anyway, I had to remove that talk page, it made our encyclopedia look bad and unprofessional. And in regards to my vid, say thanks I didn't post [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFhO7EU08Tg this] :)

:::::"I found out one thing, though. You can't pun." You're way of mark, man. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::To AlanE: I'll restore the talk page if you want to make a new article on the North Pole. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:03, 1 March 2013 (EST)
:::::::I thought that talkpage was mildly amusing. 5 year old traditions are worth keeping around provided they do no harm. It didn't make the place look bad at all, just made it feel like people who cared about the place edited here. Good on you Karajou for not being a Grinch (see, I can pun as well). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:25, 1 March 2013 (EST)
:Been out. Just come home to the good news. Thanks K. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:25, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Could always start fresh on [[Talk:South Pole]]. I snow it isn't the same, but, things happen, i guess. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:01, 4 March 2013 (EST)

==re:referencing==
Going through all of your articles that don't have proper referencing is an Herculean task. Mistakes are bound to happen here and there, if you see me making a mistake then please correct it. FYI, I actually didn't put the tag on several of your articles that did have proper references.

You know, this is just like that episode of ''The Wire'' in which they finally find out all the bodies Marlo hid in the vacant houses. Gosh, you really are the Marlo Stanfield of this encyclopedia, but luckily there's a Lester Freamon who won't let you get away. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:25, 6 March 2013 (EST)

How is putting requests for citations on pages I am barred from editing helping the site? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:43, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Wow, you sure made a lot of articles fully lacking in citations. I'm exhausted and I'm not even finished with going through all this mess you created. Seeing how long you are here, I would have expected you to be familiar with the first [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandment]] and with our [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Attribution|guidelines]]. I think it would be better if you cleaned up this mess (hint you can find it in all of the edits I did today) rather than engaging in non stop harassment of me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:53, 6 March 2013 (EST)
: Markman I would suggest you do they same as quite a few articles you have contributed to don't have references (although I don't really call adding brackets for links a substantial edit at all) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 16:14, 6 March 2013 (EST)

What annoys me, apart from the damage you are doing, is the obvious sadistic delight you are getting out of doing this. BTW I have looked at my contributions this month. I think you must have a different idea of the meaning of "non-stop" than I do. How many of the 34 or so edits this month were initiated by me at you and were not in reply to you or something you said to me or about an edit(s) of mine?
:Also, please look at [[Hearsay Society]]. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)

::@Dvergne - are you kidding me? Just dealing with AlanE's mess was so draining, and there's even more work for me to do tommorow. I don't know if after this I'll ever be able to put another <nowiki>{{uncited}}</nowiki> template on another article ever again.

::@AlanE - the article you put deals with wikipedia's ban on using '''logical statements''' without citations, not factual statements. Apples and oranges. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:53, 6 March 2013 (EST)

You didn't address my comment about your obvious glee at doing this nor the lie about my "harassment" of you. Now I have chores to do, but you keep going. (It's 9AM here, not midnight.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:05, 6 March 2013 (EST)

:In Israel it's 24:00. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:07, 6 March 2013 (EST)
::Which is midnight in my language (as it is 0119 now.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
Given that Markman's sole intention with all of this is to pick a fight and draw attention to himself I have reverted as many as I could before I was stopped by some sort of automatic mechanism. I suggest that someone else continue the job. Picking fights and stirring up controversy solely for fun is a pretty low thing to want to do. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:06, 6 March 2013 (EST)
::: So sorry but I find Markman "uncited" edits correct. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:12, 6 March 2013 (EST)
::::If Markman was a sincere editor he would put a citation tag and then point out which sentences are uncited and then attempt to find cites for them. Unfortunately, this is part of a running and personal battle that Markman is having with AlanE for petty reasons. There is no attempt to improve the encyclopedia, only to score debating points against a rival. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:22, 6 March 2013 (EST)
::: Ok, I will be watching. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:38, 6 March 2013 (EST)
::::There may well be a case for improving some of the citations involved. But driveby spamming of fact tags of one person's contributions is not productive, will only aggravate and I can only assume is designed to cause grief. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:41, 6 March 2013 (EST)

User talk:AlanE

2013-03-07T00:22:07Z

DamianJohn: /* re:referencing */

User talk:AlanE

2013-03-07T00:06:37Z

DamianJohn: /* re:referencing */

Bordeaux

2013-03-06T23:53:00Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by PhilipN

'''Bordeaux''' is an ancient port city on the estuary of the Garonne River in south-east France. Settlement there is dated to pre-[[Roman]] times, but the town only came to prominence in the 12th century as the capital of the county of [[Gascony]] within the Duchy of [[Aquitaine]] as the chief wine exporting port for the region.

The town was in [[English]] hands from the accession of [[Henry II]] in 1154 (by virtue of his marriage to [[Eleanor of Aquitaine]] in 1152) to its capture by France in 1453. England’s [[Richard II]] was born there.

Deprived of its wine trade with England it languished between 1453 and the 16th century when the French trans-[[Atlantic]] trade began, reaching its peak of prosperity in the 18th century before the suppression of the slave trade.

The region is so famous for its vineyards that the word “Bordeaux” has become generic for certain types of wine. The famous Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot, Sauvignon Blanc and Semillon grape varieties originated there.

Today, the city itself has a population nearing quarter of a million.

[[Category: French Cities and Towns]]
[[Category: French History]]
[[Category: English History]]

Navarre

2013-03-06T23:52:59Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Navarre''' is an ancient region in northern [[Spain]] which became an entity in the 9th century before becoming an independent kingdom for the duration of the [[Middle Ages]]. It was frequently at war with France (usually dynastic squabbles) before the bulk of it became part of the recently unified Spain in the early 16th century.

Today it is an “autonomous community” within Spain. Its capital, Pamplona, is famous for the annual “running of the bulls”.

[[Category: Spain]]

Battle of Najera

2013-03-06T23:52:59Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by RJJensen

The '''Battle of Nájara''' (also called Navarette) was fought near Burgos in northern Spain on 3rd April 1367, between forces led by [[Edward the Black Prince]] and Pedro the Cruel on one side and Henry of Trastamara (Pedro’s half-brother) on the other.

The prize was the crown of [[Castile]], previously usurped by Henry from Pedro. The battle was a resounding success for the prince, and adds to his status as the pre-eminent battle-commander of the age.

In historic terms the battle did little. Within two years, with French assistance, Henry had regained the throne. Edward stayed out of it this time – he was busy reorganising the finances of his principality ([[Aquitaine]]), raising taxes, due to Pedro having reneged on payment for his previous assistance.

[[Category: Battles]]
[[Category: Spanish History]]
[[Category: Medieval History]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Najera, Battle of}}

Credo

2013-03-06T23:52:58Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Credo''' (''Credo in unum Deum'' - "I believe in one God…") is the third part of the [[Mass (music)| Latin Mass Ordinary]]. As a sung or chanted version of the [[Nicene Creed]] it is an affirmation of Christian faith. It had appeared in Eastern rites by the sixth century, but was not introduced into the Roman Catholic Mass until 1014.
It is by far the longest part of the Mass and most larger (usually later) settings have it separated into two or more movements. ([[J. S. Bach]]’s great Mass in B minor has it in nine parts.)

[[Category:Sacred Music]]

Bagatelle

2013-03-06T23:52:58Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

A '''bagatelle''' is a short, light, seemingly inconsequential piece of music. The term in both [[France|French]] and [[Germany|German]] means ''“trifle”'' and first appeared musically in relation to [[Francois Couperin]] in the late seventeenth/early eighteenth centuries.

[[Beethoven]] wrote three sets of bagatelles - from one of them comes one of the most recognisable pieces of classical music: ''“Fur Elise”''. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVW8tgGY_w) A young [[Camille Saint-Saens]] wrote a set. The Hungarian master, [[Béla Bartók]], in his own unique style, wrote 14 of them, like Saint-Saens, for piano. Turning to other forces, in England, [[William Walton]] wrote five bagatelles for solo guitar, a work once neglected but now gaining in popularity with an increasing number of recordings - and even a concertante arrangement – and [[Gerald Finzi]]’s set of six for [[clarinet]] and [[piano]] - later arranged with string orchestra - gives the form a comfortable pastoral feel.

One of the most popular [[chamber music|chamber]] works of all time is [[Antonin Dvorak]]’s Bagatelles (op.47) for [[harmonium]], 2 [[violin]]s and [[cello]]; simple, charming and cheerful music that is a fine example of what can be called “household music” – pieces written for a particular group of friends or family using the instruments available to them.

[[Category:Musical forms]]

Zoltan Kodaly

2013-03-06T23:52:57Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Zoltan Kodaly''', (pronounced ''Co-die'',) (1882-1967) was a [[Hungary|Hungarian]] composer, almost exclusively known around the world for the orchestral [[suite]] from his [[opera]] ''"Hary Janos"''. He was far more than that. With [[Bela Bartok]] he is one of the foundations of twentieth century Hungarian music.

He was a country boy, seeped in the musical traditions and idioms of his folk and was mainly self taught – [[piano]] and string instruments and the start of composition. He went to the Academy of Music in [[Budapest]] when he was eighteen. Five years later he had met Bela Bartok and the pair had started collaborating in the collection and cataloguing of folk music. They also composed. Whereas Bartok was to write mainly “pure” music, allowing his own idioms to invade, Kodaly stayed close to the roots of his upbringing. His music has no less quality for that.

He wrote some orchestral music that is played today: the above Hary Janos Suite (from one of the three operas he would compose) and other pieces based on [[Magyar]] themes. His chamber music is of higher quality and deserves more attention than it gets. Two string quartets, works for individual or paired violins, organ and piano music, a wind quartet, a trio [[serenade]] for two violins and viola that is the equal of any for those instruments, and an uncompromising sonata for solo cello as fine as any.

His real love, and worth, is the large body of works for voice – nearly all choral works and mostly based on the folk music of his country; although there are songs for solo voice with piano or organ. Much of his choral writing is on sacred themes or is liturgical, many are for children’s voices. He is one of the great writers of choral music of the twentieth century.

[[Category: Composers]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kodaly, Zoltan}}

Gerald Finzi

2013-03-06T23:52:56Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Gerald''' Raphael '''Finzi''' (1901-1956) was an [[English]] [[composer]]. He is recognised as a leading exponent of the early to mid twentieth century English pastoral style, despite being of Italian-Jewish parentage – both Sephardic and Askenazim. [[London]] born, he grew up and studied there and elsewhere before, at the age of 32, moving to the country. In 1938 he settling with his artist wife on a farm, converted to suit their divers needs - which included Finzi’s interest in apple growing - in [[Hampshire]].

He is known mainly for his songs – practically all to words by English poets. His cycle of [[Shakespeare]] songs; “Let us Garlands Bring” is a particular favourite. His greatest love, however, was the poetry of [[Thomas Hardy]]. He wrote dozens of settings, with 7 opus numbers, from as early as 1921 right up to his death – he usually had several “on the go” at any one time and a series of his late songs was collected and prepared for publication by his widow and son after he died.

His vocal proclivities extended to choral works, both sacred and secular, where his sympathetic treatment of the words are as evident as in his songs. On the secular side, a major work is ''“Ode to Intimations of Immortality”'', a setting for tenor, choir and string orchestra of all but two parts of [[William Wordsworth]]’s great work of the same name. His best major sacred work – also usually for the same sources - is ''"Dies nativitas”'' (''“Day of birth”''.) Both these works, after decades of neglect, have enjoyed popularity, both “live” and on record, in recent years. He wrote many choral pieces – anthems and the like – for the annual and ancient “Three Choirs Festival” (he shares this distinction with some of the great choral composers of the age – [[Edward Elgar]], [[Hubert Parry]], [[Gustav Holst]], [[Ralph Vaughan Williams]] – men who were major influences on his music.

His pastoral side is most evident in his orchestral music. The early “Severn [[Rhapsody]]” is about as bucolic as you can get without mooing; and as firm as Vaughan Williams and [[George Butterworth]] in its statement of time and place. He wrote, or attempted to write - some of his concertante works failed in their original forms – works for [[cello]] and [[piano]] with orchestra.

He is notable as a composer for the [[clarinet]]: as well as his ''“Five [[Bagatelle]]s”'' for clarinet and piano (later orchestrated) he extended his love of the English lyric by transforming three soliloquies from Shakespeare’s “Love’s Labours Lost” to short pieces for clarinet and orchestra. His “magnum opus” though, is possibly his Clarinet [[Concerto]], considered one of the great concertos for that instrument of the twentieth century.

Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVhWOZOlFso Two songs from “Let us Garlands Bring” sung by a young Janet Baker, one of the great singers.

[[Category:Composers]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Finzi, Gerald}}

Kew Gardens

2013-03-06T23:52:56Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Kew Gardens''' (officially the Royal Botanical Gardens) are a botanical park and research establishment situated in Kew, a district of West [[London]] in the [[London Borough of Richmond upon Thames]] on the southern bank of the [[River Thames]].

An area was excised from Richmond Park in the 18th century and set aside as a botanical garden in 1759. It was gifted to the nation in 1841. It is Britain’s main centre for botanical research and the propagation and maintenance of rare plants and has been the depositary for collected specimens since the scientific voyages of [[James Cook]] and others. . In this regard, it is the botanical equivalent of the [[British Museum]].

Its grounds still contain many of the fine Georgian buildings that came with the acquisition of the 149 hectares (368 acres) of land from the original Park, including a small palace built in the early 17th century and originally called the “Dutch House".

Open to the public, they have been joined to the London [[Underground]] rail system since 1877. They were declared a UNESCO [[World Heritage Site]] in 2003.

[[Category: United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]

Thomas Bowdler

2013-03-06T23:52:56Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Thomas Bowdler''' (1754-1825) was a Scots trained [[English]] physician. A fever specialist he became a member of the Royal Society and travelled extensively until ill-health forced his retirement from medicine.

He is best remembered today for “cleaning up” the plays of [[Shakespeare]] by censoring all words and phrases that he considered "inappropriate" under the moral strictures of the time to be “read aloud” to the family. The ''“Family Shakespeare”'' was completed in 1818. At his death he was working on a similar treatment of Edward Gibbons’ ''“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”'' which his nephew, a churchman, would complete. Copies of ''“The Family Shakespeare”'' (or ''“Shakspeare”'') are still available.

The term “bowdlerise” was coined to describe the expurgation of works in this way.

He was not the first to sanitise Shakespeare – at least one “children’s edition” already existed and he was not the last. A. W. Verity made similar changes in the early 20th century – his editions were still the set text in N.S.W. (Australia) high schools in the 1960s and are still in print.

[[Category:Literature]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bowdler, Thomas}}

Jubilate

2013-03-06T23:52:55Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Jubilate''', often '''Jubilate Deo''', is the musical rendering of the 100th [[Psalm]] (“O be joyful in the Lord, all ye lands”) Musically it is ancient with Jewish versions dating back before [[Christ]].

It often replaces the Benedictus in the [[Anglican]] morning service (Matins.)

[[Henry Purcell]], [[Handel]], [[William Walton]], [[Benjamin Britten]] and [[Leonard Bernstein]] have written notable (and singable!) versions of it.

[[Category:Sacred Music]]

Peter Warlock

2013-03-06T23:52:54Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Peter Warlock''' (1894-1930) - christened Philip Arnold Heseltine - was an English composer, mainly of vocal and choral music. Under the name Heseltine he edited and wrote on musical subjects; especially on the [[lute song]]s and [[madrigal|ayre]]s of [[Elizabethan]] and [[Jacobean]] [[England]] and concerning his older contemporary and compatriot, [[Frederick Delius]].

As Warlock, he is known for his songs and other miniatures, many flavoured by the 16th and 17th centuries; the focus of his work as Philip Heseltine. Perhaps his best known instrumental work is the “Capriol Suite” taken from 16th century French dance tunes. Two carols are popular – “Balulalow” and “Bethlehem Down”. He also wrote for the [[piano]] including 4-hand arrangements of Delius works.

Whilst much of his music harks back to an earlier era, he was capable of writing music compatible with the songs and ballads of his time. The song, “Captain Stratton’s Fancy” (“the old bold mate of Henry Morgan”.) ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmCWIHseDGw) is a firm favourite of baritones everywhere. Also in a style more atune to the musical language of the 1920s is “The Curlew”, settings for [[English Horn|cor anglais]], [[flute]] and string quartet of four poems of [[William Butler Yeats|W. B. Yeats]] which perfectly reflect the utter misery of the words. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weHYbcbd0hI). If nothing else this music illustrates the worth of the cor anglais as a “descriptive instrument”.

Warlock was in a “delicate” mental state for much of his life. It is probable but not certain, that he took his own life, by gassing, at the age of 36.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Warlock, Peter}}
[[Category: Composers]]

Pastoral (music)

2013-03-06T23:52:53Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by Onestone

The word '''Pastoral''' is derived from the [[Latin]] adjective ''pastoralis'' ("appertaining to shepherds") and can be discerned as a form of literature as far back as [[Hesiod]] in the 7th century B.C., In music, as in literature, it is seen as having to do with country life and rural themes. As a musical term (often seen in the[[France| French]] ''“Pastorelle”'' or French and [[Italy|Italian]] ''“Pastorale”''), it came into Western music through certain songs of the troubadours and trouvères in southern and northern France respectively in the 11th and 12th centuries.

The earliest piece of English lyric verse to which we have a tune is the pastoral ''“Sumer is acumen in”'' from about the 1240s. Also about this time a play on the frivolities of ''“Robin et Marion”'' was set to music.

Many songs of the 15th century – French [[chanson]]s Italian [[frottola]] and early [[madrigal]]s – concerned themselves with love in the open air and the pleasures and vicissitudes of rural life. This continued into the 20th century with Joseph Canteloube’s extremely popular and oft recorded collection of folk songs, '“Chants D’Auvergne”''.

The theme of the amorous shepherd, of nymphs cavorting with shepherdesses in Arcadian glades and fields was a favourite theme in early [[opera]]s and at the courts of England and France into the eighteenth century. The late 15th century [[Venice|Venetian]] play ''“Il pastor fido”'' (''“The Faithful Shepherd”'') was given many musical treatments including one by Handel as late as 1736.

As a term descriptive of the music rather than the subject, the term gained currency during the 18th century to describe music that sounded like a country dance. This was music with a ground bass suggestive of [[bagpipes]] (a particularly rustic instrument once pried away from the Scots) accompanying country dance-like rhythms. [[J. S. Bach]] wrote a ''“Pastoral Symphony”'' into his ''“Christmas Oratorio”'' as did Handel into “''[[Handel's Messiah|The Messiah]]''”

Major pieces with the term attached (either by the composer or others) include symphonies by [[Beethoven]], [[Ralph Vaughan Williams|Vaughan Williams]] and Alexander Glazunov, a [[piano]] [[sonata]] by Beethoven, [[Joaquín Rodrigo]]’s ''“Concierto Pastoral”'' (flute) and various [[suite]]s, [[fantasia]]s and other descriptive pieces. [[Emmanuel Chabrier]]’s orchestral “Suite Pastorale” is especially popular.

[[Category:Musical forms]]

Masque

2013-03-06T23:52:53Z

DamianJohn: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by AlanE

'''Masques''' were a form of dramatic entertainment, of [[Italy|Italian]] origin that found their most spectacular form in court and manor in [[England]] from the late 16th century to the middle of the 17th, when most public entertainments were banned by the [[Puritan]] Commonwealth.

They were a mixture of [[music]] and [[dance]], costume and setting – usually extremely extravagant – where plot was hardly evident and character usually disguised behind masks. The settings were spectacular and the engines required for their effectiveness often ingenious. The great English architect [[Inigo Jones]] was as well known for a time for his stage designs as his buildings.

The masque found its highest form in works by [[Ben Jonson]] and [[Milton]], however the greatness of their literary genius began transforming the masque into what would better described as [[pastoral]] [[drama]].

Tastes changed in [[English Restoration|Restoration]] period, when productions became more dramatic (or farcical, or bawdy or all three) before [[opera]] became the favourite entertainment of the rich and powerful. The name existed into the 18th century but the form had changed.

[[Category: English History]]
[[Category: music]]
[[Category: Entertainment]]
[[Category:Literature]]