Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order

2009-11-16T16:23:52Z

DanHutchin: Reply

"Subsequently, however, more accurate measurements with more sophisticated technology have determined this precession to be 55 arc-seconds per century, nearly 30% off the number provided by relativity."

Please provide a citation in the article for this. I'm shocked that I somehow missed the news. Thanks much. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:48, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:I'm urging you to look beyond what you're taught. I went through the same physics curriculum as others, and it is what isn't taught that matters. Earnestly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Okay. Let's find a way of making that point without quoting an incorrect value for the Mercury anomaly then? Cause putting in a number that's not actually supported by observations just to make a philosophical point seems kind of … I dunno. Deceptive? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:58, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, if I can call you that, I have no reason to lie about this. I'm not applying for any grants. I'm not trying to get a PhD from liberal professors. I'm not worried about what my colleagues might say. Like the Bible, I'm just telling the truth, and trying to learn more of it.

:::The physics journals all seem to require payment for access. But type this into a Google search: 5599.7 Mercury. You'll then see what the liberal physics professors won't tell you, as Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. Then, please, pause for a moment and ask yourself: why didn't they tell you this so you could decide for yourself, rather than being told what to think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::::Oh, okay. I see where you made an honest mistake.

::::There are two numbers at play here: there's the ''observed'' precession of Mercury's orbit, and then there's the ''anomaly.'' The anomaly is the amount by which the observed precession differs from the mathematically predicted precession. What you did was quote a figure for the ''anomaly'' using the figure for the ''observed'' precession. Hang on, lemme splain.

::::The precession of an orbit is the sum of several effects. Newton's approximation for gravity predicted three different effects: axial precession of 5,025 arc seconds per century, 530 additional arc seconds per century from the gravitational effects of the other planets, and a tiny amount, less than one arc second per century, due to the fact that the sun isn't a perfect sphere. (Those numbers are all rounded off; the precise figures are trivially googlable.)

::::If you add up the precession predicted by Newton's approximation, you get exactly 5,557.02 arc seconds per century.

::::But if you run the numbers using the Einstein equations instead of the Newton equations — using the same constants for things like the mass and shape of the sun — you get a precession of exactly 5,600±0.04 arc seconds per century. It's really weird that it would be a round number like that, but that's how the math works out.

::::The observed precession of Mercury's orbit? It's 5,599.7 arc seconds per century. Which is where you got your number from. And that means the general relativity prediction was accurate to within (deep breath) one half of one one hundredth of one percent.

::::That's like shooting an arrow from Los Angeles and hitting the bullseye in Melbourne.

::::Would you be a dear and remove the incorrect anomaly figure from your essay now? I know it's a work in progress and I hate nitpickers, but somebody could stumble across that and be misinformed.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 19:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Your point is an excellent one. Thank you. The 30% figure was wrong for the reasons you provide.

:::::But the underlying point in this entry remains correct: due to advances in precision in measurement, the prediction of relativity no longer matches the data on the precession. The discrepancy is much greater than the margin of error, which is all that matters from a logical perspective. The entry has been updated accordingly, and I welcome further comments you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) I'm not sure you're going to welcome these comments, sir. Because you're just flat-out, provably, unequivocally wrong on this one. The observed value of the precession of Mercury hasn't been changed in a hundred years, because it's a direct observation. We measured it with telescopes, and those were just fine at that scale a century ago.

I'm afraid your edit made the offending section paragraph ''even more misleading than it was.'' Predicted value of the precession (via Newton) in 1915: 5,557. Observed value in 1915? 5,600. Difference? 43. Predicted value from the Einstein equations? 5,600. Observed value today? Still 5,600. Difference? Ridiculously small. I ''know'' you're actively working on this essay, and I feel ''really'' bad about beating you up over this, but you wouldn't have the paragraph in there unless you thought it had value.

Just so you know, I've got some feedback on your paragraph on quantum mechanics as well. For starters, the position and momentum of a particle is exactly as uncertain after an observation as it is before, because reducing uncertainty of the position increases uncertainty of the momentum and vice versa. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe that's not your point; measuring a particle does, I suppose, bring about a sort of philosophical order that was previously absent — we know where the particle is now — but at the cost of reducing our knowledge about another aspect of the particle's motion. But your essay isn't fleshed out enough for me to really see yet what you're getting at, so that might be irrelevant to your point. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:00, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I don't have an ax to grind about this. General Relativity was developed to explain the Mercury precession, so the theory certainly should fit the data. I expected that it would. But the fit isn't there anymore, due to more precise measurements. It's beyond the margin of error, and logically that's all that matters. You're using rounding above that obscures what the margin of error is. Professor Will does not even include this test in his recent summary of all the evidence for GR, and we can now see why. Those are the facts, and logic applied to the facts. Anyone has free will to accept or deny it. I accept the facts and logic as they require.

:You make an interesting point about position, but I don't think the essay is incorrect because it says nothing about momentum. Observation can pin down the position, which is relevant to establishing order. But without observation there is disorder. That is the basic point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::Right, but there's an error of fact buried in there. It's a totally innocent one, I'm sure; I'm not accusing you of axe-grinding. It's just that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury ''has not changed'' since 1916 when the theory was published. It's not that we measured it with telescopes before 1916 and got a rough estimate, and now we measure it with better telescopes and have a much more precise figure. We measured it before 1916 and got a very accurate figure because measuring the motion of Mercury just isn't that hard, and the measurements we make today with better telescopes say only that yup, the older measurements were pretty much spot on.

::What we ''have'' done since then is to much more precisely measure the oblateness of the sun. There was a big controversy about that back in the … hmm … 80s I think it was? Goldberg and Dicke claimed that the sun was much "fatter" than previously thought, which ''would have'' made the predictions from general relativity different from the observed precession. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? For a while there was a lot of disagreement about what shape the sun actually is, but that's been pretty much put to bed with both more accurate ground-based observations in the 90s and helioseismography.

::Anyway, saying that the prediction matched the observation in 1916 and doesn't today is simply flat-out false. If your argument depends on it, then you're hurting your argument with this point. If it doesn't, then what's the harm in fixing it?

::Thanks for clarifying your point about quantum mechanics. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 20:35, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, as I said, I don't care either way, but I am going to tell the truth. GR fit the observed data in 1916 (indeed, GR was developed to fit it), but now (due to more sophisticated measurements) the GR prediction is wrong ''by more than the margin of error''. None of your comments above address the margin of error, which must be the scientific focus. A difference between theory and observation is not "ridiculously small" if it is more than the margin of error, as in this case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Perhaps this is what Mr. Schlafly is referring to. The article states that 5599.7 arc-seconds is the observed value. KSorenson is quoting a value of 5,600 (±0.04). 5600-.04=5599.96. From just those values then yes the relativity value is higher by .26 arc-seconds even factoring in the error. The only thing I ask is what is the error range for the observed value? [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:08, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Presumably the error range for the observed value is no more than .1. Again, note that Professor Will conspicuously omits this famous claim of evidence for GR from his recent comprehensive summary of the evidence for GR, as cited in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent again because I'm lazy with bullets) We can do a heck of a lot better than "presumably," Andy, and as a person who cares deeply about facts and logic, you darned well know that. I happen to have the Pijpers paper from 94 here; I dug it out when I thought you might have been thinking of helioseismography. In it he cites radar ranging studies from 1976 to 1992. Here's the data, ''with margins of error.'' Note that these numbers are for ''the anomaly,'' and not the precession total, and remember that the figure from the Einstein equation is 42.98 ± 0.04, okay?

*43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro 76)
*42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson 87)
*42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson 91)
*43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson 92)

So the Einstein prediction is within the margin of error of those four radar-ranging measurements of the Mercury anomaly. I'm sure there've been more recent studies, but I don't have them literally sitting in front of my face at the moment, so those are the ones I'm citing. Can I see your numbers that say the Einstein prediction is outside the margin? More recent data than what I have in my hand here maybe? (This Pijpers paper is [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9804258v1 on ARXIV], by the way, if you want to check it out.)--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:17, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Oh, and just incidentally? Will didn't leave Mercury out of his paper; he just talked about it in really jargony physics-paper language.

:Three decades of experiments, ranging from the standard light-deﬂection and perihelion-shift tests to lunar laser ranging, planetary and satellite tracking, and geophysical and astronomical observations, have placed bounds on the PPN parameters consistent with general relativity.

"PPN" is the ''parameterized post''-''Newton'' formalism, a rewriting of the law of universal gravitation to include coefficients derived from general relativity. The Einstein field equations are nightmarish to solve, so PPN was created as a middle-ground approximation between the (good but not good enough in some contexts) Newton approximation and the agonizing pain of having to actually ''solve'' the Einstein field equations every time you want to calculate the delta-vee required during a solar slingshot maneuver for a planetary probe. What Will said in that paper is the PPN approximation has been tested ''against general relativity'' and supported by 30 years of experiments.

This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:Kate, I have an open mind about this but, quite honestly, the relativists protest too much. Why do you care so much about defending relativity? Not to pick on you, however, because many trained in math and physics likewise defend relativity like they are defending their own reputation. It's bizarre. Regardless of the reason, protesting too much is not scientific.

:Answering the substance of your post, your most recent data is from 1992 (17 years ago, with the data probably older than that), and its margin of error confirms what I said: it's approaching 0.1. Combine that 0.1 (or 0.14 if you like) with the most recent data and it's clear that GR no longer fits the data. Of course, no one is going to dare publish a paper claiming GR is disproved by the data, and even if they tried, no journal would accept it. So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)

::"Why do you care so much about defending relativity?" 'Cause teaching physics is something I do for a living. 'Cause I think it's really neat. 'Cause seeing somebody totally misunderstand it, and then go on to draw incorrect conclusions based on his misunderstanding of it, and finally to pass those incorrect conclusions on to impressionable kids who trust him … well, that just breaks my heart. You can call it protesting too much if you want, Andy. But I wish you could understand that it's really just me trying to help.

::I wouldn't have fought you on this at all if you'd said something like "A dozen eggs contains fifteen eggs, plus or minus two." That's just ''obviously'' wrong, and nobody who reads it would fall for it. But you're hiding your false conclusion behind a wall of data that you know most people won't bother looking up for themselves, and that's just dishonest. That's unworthy of anybody who'd call himself a teacher, and what's more I think you know that in your heart. You seem like a conscientious guy; what does your conscience say to you about this?

::Anyway, it's your essay, you can obviously write what you want. But let me just give you a heads up: Next week, when I put your [[theory of relativity]] page on the table for major surgery? I don't think you're gonna like it. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:24, 14 November 2009 (EST)

:::Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it. The bottom line is clear: no physics major, no physics grad student, and no physics teacher should dare criticize relativity, no matter what the data say. The political grip on this issue is intense. In fact, to be honest, I would advise against your criticizing it in any way. It could harm your (or any other teacher's or physicist's) career. There are examples of people who were denied tenure simply because they criticized evolution, and the politics here is just as strong.

:::I look forward to learning from your entry on the theory of relativity. The math is fascinating regardless of its manifestation in reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 14 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) "Kate, you didn't address the substance of my comment about the evidence, but don't worry about it." What was there to address? You made an arithmetic error. Do you want me to send you the Mathematica scatterplot I made just to triple-check that I was interpreting the data correctly? It's pretty. The error bars are blue.

Andy, I wish I could get you to come to my department for a week. Just one week, any week. Our students, grad students, associates, profs, chair, heck, even the ''janitor'' criticizes relativity every day. I could get you a meeting with one of our theoretical cosmologist; he's been pulling his ''hair'' out for years trying to make some progress on the vacuum energy problem. For a while there he was coming into my office a couple times a week and saying … well, unprintable things about partial differential equations. Even we theoretical physicists think general relativity is a mathematical mess.

But we respect it anyway. Because it ''works,'' at least as far as anybody's been able to measure.

Can I ask you a question? What's your beef with relativity? I mean, I know you question the data, but … why? Are you just being iconoclastic? I don't mean that in a dismissive way; I totally understand and respect the impulse to say "Everybody agrees that this is true, so I'm going to question it!" I'd really just like to understand your point of view on this, whatever it may be. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

: GR's predictions are off by more than the margin of error, as we discussed in detail above; it and special relativity have absurd discontinuities; there are logical flaws, as in relativistic mass; it conflicts with QM; and it predicts gravitons that have never been found despite wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it. Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible and relativity is pushed big-time by liberals. It chills progress by intimidating people against criticizing it. Other than that, the theory is pretty good!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::Wow, Mr. Schlafly must really like this conversation, he actually made a joke. ;) jk [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 00:15, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks very much for taking the time to reply; I understand better now. Of course, some of that is unmitigated garbage, and we'll have plenty of chances to deal with it when I fix your [[theory of relativity]] article next week, so I'll skip some points for now.

:::*''You'' discussed the fact that the predictions are outside the margin of error; ''I'' pointed out to you repeatedly that you were mistaken. I even offered to show you a plot. So come on.

:::*To be frank, relativity doesn't ''conflict'' with quantum mechanics; the two theories don't overlap in any domains we can presently observe. But that's the problem. They don't overlap, so we don't know how we're going to understand systems where both gravity and quantum mechanics have non-negligible effects. It's entirely possible that every such region of spacetime is sequestered behind an event horizon; that's jokingly called the "convenient cosmic censorship hypothesis" by one of my colleagues.

:::*General relativity doesn't predict gravitons at all. General relativity doesn't say anything about particles; the Standard Model predicts the existence of particles (like the Higgs). Gravitons are part of the various attempts to reformulate general relativity as a vector gauge theory, none of which have gotten there yet. And, uh, since none of the gauge theories have gotten there yet, Andy, ''not one dollar'' has been spent looking for gravitons. Because we don't know where to look. But we ''do'' know that if they could be detected by existing particle accelerators, they would've been. So if and when physicists decide to look for them, it's going to have to start with building an accelerator the size of our galaxy<ref>WARNING: exaggeration for humorous effect, do not take literally.</ref>, and you'll have your chance to lobby the appropriations committee then.

:::*Yes, studying relativity does take people away from time they could spend in religious activities. So does reading this site. Just give me a chance to copy-and-paste my contributions out before you shut it down to remove the temptation.

:::Anyway, like I said, we'll have plenty of time to have these arguments when I start work on [[theory of relativity]]. All I ask is that you ''engage in constructive collaboration'' with me and whomever else chooses to help out, rather than pouncing on the "undo" button like you did when I rewrote [[black hole]]. We've both demonstrated that we're reasonable adults, I think; we can work together. Deal? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:22, 15 November 2009 (EST)

{{reflist}}

::::I've been quietly following this conversation today, but Kate beat me to the "Submit" button! Well, I'll just point out that scientists can and frequently do "intimidat[e] people against criticizing" pretty much any theory, because they think it's right and they don't want to waste time. It's quite likely close-mindedness, but it exists, and you can't take that as disproof of the theory. I don't think someone who rejected Mendel or Maxwell would get pretty far today, either. (Yes, I know Mendel has been amended with epigenetic inheritance, but I think you get my picture). It's just a bothersome red herring.

::::I don't know anything about the Mercury data, but the most recent data I've seen here says general relativity might work; it's at the border of the range of error, and it's too precise for any of us to extrapolate. General relativity could be spot on. Or, a new theory being needed - if you're trying to construct a [[theory of everything]], a new theory definitely is needed to deal with [[quantum mechanics]]! But, general relativity does predict a lot of things better than Newton. Newton didn't explain everything, nor does general relativity - but I think you can find better stuff to attack it with than an extrapolation of Mercury orbital data. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:37, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Ugh, I really should be sleeping, but this is just such an engaging conversation I can't seem to break away.

:::::If you make a measurement to test a theory and the measurement doesn't match the prediction, there are three possibilities. Either the measurement is wrong ("That's not Mercury, that's Saturn!") or the theory is wrong ("Turns out gravity ''isn't'' really caused by leprechauns!") or both are fundamentally right but you failed to take something into account ("We really shouldn't have assumed the sun is a sphere.")

:::::The thing about the Mercury anomaly is that the observed and predicted numbers are ''insanely'' close together. So close as to be declared equal within the margin of error. So either general relativity is ''absolutely'' right and we accounted for ''everything'' — no physicist believes this, by the way — or general relativity is at least ''incredibly close'' to being right, so close that the factors we failed to account for are negligible at the scale of the Mercury anomaly.

:::::But the thing is, Mercury is really thin sauce, as gravity goes. The fields are weak, and the prediction we're testing doesn't say anything terribly interesting about the theory. If you want to get a real feel for how general relativity holds up as a ''physical'' theory, and not just a mathematical one, you really need to look at the Gravity Probe B data. (Conflict of interest alert: I worked on that project.) That experiment didn't measure gravitation indirectly by observing the motion of a particle; it measured it ''directly'' by parallel transporting a vector in a closed loop around a region of curvature. We ''empirically'' measured the curvature of spacetime around a gravitating object (the Earth) and found it to be non-zero. Spacetime is ''not'' flat, massive bodies ''do'' curve spacetime, and the fundamental ''idea'' of general relativity reflects nature.

:::::General relativity doesn't just say that a falling body moves like such-n-such. It tells us ''why.'' And to see it dismissed out of hand because Andy doesn't care for the size of the error bars on the results of a radar study? That, I confess, rubs me the wrong way. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:51, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Great point about experimental error. Before I ''really do'' sign off for the night, Kate, I'd like to give you an article suggestion: [[Gravity_Probe_B]]. I'm enthusiastically looking forward to hearing how it was done! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 01:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Oh, I'm not the girl to write that one. It'd be 200 pages long and full of equations and whole paragraphs of me going "You guys this is so ''awesome!"'' --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 01:09, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::On the contrary. You are exactly the right girl to write this. But not yet. Do GR first, OK? And you'll have to take off your instructor hat, and put on your explainer-for-lay-people hat, so that it won't be 200 pages long. Whenever you reach the point where you think "You guys this is so ''awesome''", don't go into "and so I have to write the awesome equations". Go into "how can I convey the awesomeness to my reader?". [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 11:32, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted. Relativity has quasi-religious status for many; they'll defend regardless of what the evidence is, regardless of its absurd inconsistencies, and regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability. I don't mind relativity, and look forward to reviewing the updated entry. But open-mindedness is not a trait of many relativists, who will demonize anyone who points out its fairly obvious flaws.

:::::::One way to evaluate religions, or quasi-religions, is to look at the fruit it bears. What has it helped achieved? In the case of relativity, it has produced nothing. Nil. Zippo. After nearly 100 years and a ton of money. If you find the math in relativity fun, great, but relativity is not going to help anyone. It never has. Pick up a Bible in between some equations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::''"Relativity has quasi-religious status for many…regardless of its far-fetched assumptions and non-falsifiability."'' As has already been shown repeatedly by those knowledgeable and qualified in the subject such as KSorenson the theory of general relativity is eminently falsifiable. For instance the two gravity probes (GP-A and GP-B) were launched specifically to measure rate change of a clock in lower gravity and space-time curvature near the Earth respectively, both experiments specifically testing the theory of relativity. As both experiments were to test the theory of relativity this means that the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered falsifiable. This is as patently obvious as stating that 2+2=4. If the theory of relativity is not falsifiable then no experiment can exist to test it. The existence of Gravity Probes A & B automatically that the previous statement cannot be true. So, the undeniable existence of Gravity Probes A & B now proving the falsifiability of the theory of general relativity this means that by Karl Popper's rigorous standard the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be a science. This is immediately obvious to anyone who has made an in depth study of Popper's work, the kind of study that all students of the pure sciences undergo, although strangely enough those students of those subjects which use an applied form of science never seem to be taught such things to the levels required. Presumably this is because the standard of science they are taught is considerably less rigorous or in-depth than the standards expected of and required of students of the pure sciences.

::::::::As the theory of relativity meets the requirements to be considered a science then this in turn means the first part of your statement: ''"Relativity has a quasi-religious status"'' is itself false. Science is not religion. Religion requires hope, hope that what one believes is true. Science requires absolute cynicism, it requires one to say "this is my idea, help me prove it wrong". To this date tests on the theory of general relativity has failed to show that it is wrong, and where measurements have been made to confirm or deny the accuracy of the general theory of relativity such results have shown that the predictions made by the theory of relativity are accurate to the observed effects well within the scientifically determined margins of error.

::::::::The statement that ''"relativity is not going to help anyone"'' is, of course, as wrong as you can get. The theory of relativity opened up a massive area of study, and there are no known limits to what may be achieved through such studies. It is not hyperbole to state that the creation of the theory of relativity is as important, if not more important, than the discovery of the safe generation and transference of electricity. This is known and accepted by everybody who has an in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge gained through years of learning and self-teaching that begins after one leaves university, after one has gained the bedrock of knowledge required to begin teaching oneself the true depths of a subject.

::::::::I beg of you this one thing. Open up your Bible and truly study the price one pays for Arrogance and Pride. Learn the lesson that the true Student and Teacher must come to the subjects they study in a state of Humility. Of all the posts on the subject of general relativity each and every person that has made an in depth study of the subject have stated that the views you hold on general relativity are wrong. The only person who states that your views are correct are yourself. Look inside yourself and ask if your stubborn resistance to accept what others learned in the subject have to say on this matter is arrogance, pride or humility.(by DanHutchin)

:::::::::Dan, I accept your challenge. I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility." Thank you for suggesting it. In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone? Electricity powers hospitals that save lives, and increase productivity and wealth which help the poor throughout the world. You say relativity "is as important, if not more important." Specific examples, please?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: Sorry for butting in here but I love science, I am a science major currently. In my mind God gave us the scientific method and the tools to explore his creation for his glory. We can debate the merits of relativity all day but the fact remains that if it is true it is part of God's creation and because of that, automatically gives it value. Plus, pure science in a lot of cases leads to applied science. I don't like arguments based on what we don't know. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:00, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:: Ameda, that's fine, but surely you'd agree that unproductive theories or beliefs should not squeeze out productive ones. Someone can use rhetoric to defend any belief or activity, from watching television to drinking beer. One can spend hours explaining to an addict why he should, for example, stop smoking. All the explaining in the world is not as powerful as this: ''nothing good comes of it''. Relativity has had nearly 100 years to help somebody, anybody. How many more centuries should we give it priority over alternative, productive work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::GPS, fiber optics, solar panels and PET scans don't count?

:::I'm amusingly reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said when asked what good was the then-freshly-invented hot-air balloon. "What good is a newborn baby?" That was 1783; powered flight didn't happen until 1903. If you don't see ''enough'' benefits from relativity yet, I'd say you need to embrace patience. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 22:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::: And by "squeeze out" I assume you mean in funding? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think it is worth it because it is an integral part of God's creation. Plus, I don't think that just because relativity is given grant money that necessarily means that it is taking it from money that would have gone to say genetically engineering bigger crops. There isn't a one-one correspondence.

::::I agree with a lot on here but honestly Andy, with all respect, I think DanHutchin is right. We all suffer from pride and from all I have read on here, from your brother Roger to Kate above, you are suffering from it big time on this issue. Think, is it really a coincidence that the first part of the Conservative Bible Project I translated was talking about humbling oneself and I did it just this very night? Sorry for the long response but know that it comes from the heart. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::::: Amen, Ameda. I appreciate your advice for me to read the Bible more, and with a humbler heart. I'd also like your advice about this. If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people ''away'' from the Bible, would you still support the promotion of relativity? A direct answer from your heart, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: From the heart, and '''hopefully''' my understanding of the Word, anything can lead people away from the Lord, even if "based" on the Word of God. What I mean by that is people can use and abuse anything, even the Bible to support xyz. ''You know how many times I see Peter Popoff ripping off my brothers and sisters in Christ for some "Miracle spring water"?''

::::::If relativity is part of the fabric of the universe, and I do think that, then it was created by God just as much as the Bible, the stars, etc. and as I said can be used and abused. The only way science can lead one away from the Lord is if there isn't the secondary component to it, the spiritual one, the one stating that this was created by a being that created you and loves you. That is the only thing that needs to be addressed not relativity itself. Basically it seems like you are arguing that God's creation can lead people away from him? I don't think that is scriptural nor correct. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:04, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::No, that's not what I'm saying, and I humbly requested a ''direct'' answer. People who are taught and then believe relativity are less likely to read the Bible again, or as frequently. If true (as we've seen on this site and in colleges), do you still support the promotion of relativity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I don't think that is what you're saying, but Ameda has a point: if relativity is true, then God made it, so we can't dismiss it. If it isn't true, and if it does lead people away from the Bible, then we shouldn't be talking about it - but we first need to decide whether relativity is true.

:::::::And could I please see those statistics? I believe relativity, and I read the Bible. I think you're mistaking a correlation for causation: we already know colleges try to move students away from the Bible, and they're where most people happen to learn relativity. So, even though relativity has nothing to do with it, it's quite possible that people who study relativity are less likely to read the Bible because they've happened to spend years at liberal schools. (Incidentally, that's a good reason to teach relativity here at Conservapedia!) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:24, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Andy, you are trying to trap me into some black/white answer here. I believe that relativity is true and therefore when taught in all aspects will not lead people away from God. You might as well ask me the same thing concerning the Sun. Can it lead people away, sure, '''when''' it is couched in naturalistic philosophy. You are making some wild hypothetical based on nothing but your own encounters with vandals on this site, that is not empirical. I can easily make the same hypothetical concerning Conservapedia itself. I view this site as preaching the word of God but that doesn't mean that just because someone thinks less of Christianity after reading it then that means it is a problem with the site, it could be with the person not wanting to hear the truth.

::::::::PS- People misunderstood me, I wasn't saying Andy was arguing that, it simply reads like it as a consequence of what he is saying considering that relativity is correct and was designed by God. My opinion of course.[[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:29, 15 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Don't let me jump into the middle of y'all's philosophical debate or anything, but there's a point on the table that needs resolving. Andy, your essay (yes, I know, still a work in progress) contains falsehoods. Are you at all interested in correcting them? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 23:31, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Indeed. The essay contained the claim that the theory of general relativity is non-falsifiable. This is patently wrong. There are well documented experiments that seek, through observation of physical phenomena, to disprove predictions made by the application of the theory of the general relativity. Whether the results of these observations match the predictions made (within scientifically determined margins of error) is completely immaterial. The fact that the experiments contain the potential to show that the theory of relativity is false shows that the theory of relativity meets the most basic test required to be considered falsifiable. It is impossible to deny such a basic and obvious fact and retain any kind of credibility.

''"In the meantime, could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone?"'' As has been stated above, PET scans. Please show how PET scans have never helped anybody. And all those inventions mentioned above are just the tip of the 'berg of how the theory of relativity has helped people.

''"Relativity pulls people away from reading the Bible"'' Please show the empirical evidence you have gathered for this. Please also provide the empirical evidence that shows that the people not reading the Bible '''a)''' have done so because of relativity and '''b)''' were reading the Bible before they became involved with relativity.

''"I'll work on translating the Bible tonight and tomorrow with "a state of Humility.""'' So you refuse to reconsider your belief that relativity is wrong, and refuse to remove the falsehoods contained within the essay. Instead you seek to rewrite sacred texts so that they say only what you want to say. Much in the same way you seek to rewrite what falsifiability means so that it says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the good that the theory of relativity has led to so that it now says only what you want it to say. Much as you seek to rewrite the experiments that test the theory of reliability and also seek to rewrite the results of those experiments so that they say only what you want them to say. I'm sorry. I truly am, for while I can see a pattern there, I cannot see any true humility in any of these actions.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 11:23, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Order

2009-11-16T02:33:39Z

DanHutchin: Reply

User talk:SaraT

2009-11-14T22:23:06Z

DanHutchin:

The 1300s did not occur after the [[King James Bible]], and hence my reversion. You might try taking [[World History Final Exam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I didn't read the fine print "developed since the King James Version". That explains a bunch of conservative words that I found surprisingly absent, like "work" and "decency". I'll be more selective and careful in the future.

:My KJV doesn't show a date in the dedication, which sort of surprised me. But I knew it was during the reign of James I, in the early 1600's. I didn't know, until just now, that it was 1611.

:The Final Exam question you are referring to was 40, right? Answer is B of course. I'll look at the exam in more detail soon. I've just finished taking some other exams. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:47, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Here are my answers to the World History Final Exam:

:1 c 11 b 21 b 31 d 41 d 51 c
:2 d 12 b 22 d 32 d 42 c 52 b
:3 a 13 a 23 b 33 b 43 b 53 a
:4 c 14 c 24 b 34 c 44 b 54 d
:5 d 15 e 25 b 35 d 45 e 55 b
:6 a 16 e 26 d 36 b 46 e 56 e
:7 b 17 d 27 b 37 a 47 d 57 d
:8 a 18 c 28 e 38 c 48 c 58 b
:9 c 19 b 29 c 39 e 49 b 59 c
:10 b 20 d 30 d 40 b 50 d 60 a
:EC d for boys, e for girls

Minor nit on question 53: It's Carta, not Charta.

MAJOR nit on question 59: Solving encrypted messages by checking letter frequencies is the stuff of puzzles in popular magazines and children's books. The Enigma cipher was '''much''' more difficult than that. The rotors advanced, completely changing the permutation, after every letter. Solving the Enigma cipher required the concentrated effort of the best minds of the British mathematics community. See "Alan Turing: The Enigma" by Andrew Hodges for a readable, but not ''too'' technical account, of the problem and the way it was attacked.

: I don't know if I'll bother grading your exam, because you defiantly answered both the boys and girls extra credit question. You're not both.

: Your "minor nit on question 53" is wrong. See [http://www.magnacharta.org/]

: Your "major nit on question 59" is also wrong. British mathematicians did not crack the Enigma; Polish mathematicians did, and part of the decrypting was based on letter frequency. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

::"Your "minor nit on question 53" is wrong." Actually SaraT is correct. The Magna Carta is the Magna Carta, or Magna Carta Libertatum. The translation of Carta is Charter, but any spelling of Carta as Charta is completely incorrect. I'm afraid to say that the people running the site that you linked too need to educate themselves re:13th century Latin spelling.

:::"Your "major nit on question 59" is also wrong. British mathematicians did not crack the Enigma; Polish mathematicians did, and part of the decrypting was based on letter frequency. Godspeed." Again incorrect. Whilst the Polish did crack the pre-war Enigma code the German's changed the way that Enigma generated messages specifically to counter the way that the Polish had cracked the pre-war code. It was the British who cracked the new Enigma code during the war. Because of the way that encryption using the Enigma machine was changed, plus operational changes such as not allowing messages of more than 250 words, this meant the process that you refer to in the question, initialization vector which is the system that the Biuro Szyfrów used to crack the pre-war code, became almost useless in cracking the new Enigma code.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 17:23, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Action at a distance ==

SaraT and KSorenson (this is being sent to both):

I'm interested in working on the article about [[action at a distance]]. (Actually I'm busy working on many things about science and math, as a look at my [[Special:Contributions/PatrickD|contributions]] will show, but this particular issue has bubbled to the top of my agenda.) I'm confused about the ways this term is used. Since you both seem to be interested in the history of science, you might be able to shed some light on it.

The suggested meanings I have come across are:
#Exertion of force on an object that isn't in direct contact. This must be what it means in Newtonian gravity, right?
#Transmission of a force instantaneously, or, in any case, supraluminally. This doesn't seem to have been an issue with Newton, because the finite speed of light, and the causality consequences of that, weren't known at the time. Right?
#Consequences of "Quantum Entanglement". This seems to relate to supraluminal transmission of information, and is therefore related to #2. Right?

So which is it? Can either of you enlighten me? Or fix the article? (By the way, you both write very well.) [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:28, 12 November 2009 (EST)

I've seen what KSorenson wrote, and her explanation of the locality and causality aspects are far superior to anything I could do. But I would like to point out that, historically, it meant something different. One thing that the old and new definitions have in common is an element of "spookiness". Of course, what was spooky in the 1600's is perfectly sensible now.

The term is considered rather quaint now; I think it should properly be used only in the old context. As KS points out, in the modern world of field theories, "locality" and "non-locality" are better terms. If something (like an electric charge) locally affects the field (electric field or Faraday tensor) here, and there are equations (Maxwell's equations) relating the behavior of the field here with the behavior there, and the field there causes a particle there to feel a force, that is not really "action at a distance". It's perfectly acceptable. In modern terms, it's a local field theory. The field "mediated" the force. The way the equations relate the field at one point to the field at another point (divergences and such) that carry the force from "here" to "there".

But the carrying of force from one point to another wasn't so easy to accept in the 1600's. It was considered spooky, just as Schrodinger's cat and quantum entanglement are considered spooky today. In the 1600's, people generally believed that one object could only exert a force on another object if the two were in physical contact. There was plenty of practical experience underlying this belief.

:But there were two effects that I can think of that violated this: There were magnets--natural lodestones; and their ability to point North had been known since antiquity. And there was gravity. The apple fell to the ground without anyone pushing it. How did they reconcile this? My guess is that they just didn't think as hard about such issues as perhaps they might have.

I think that Newton's discovery that gravity makes the planets move forced people to think about what they had been ignoring. You can overlook an apple falling to the ground, but you can't overlook a force making Mars move. Was it the fact that the force operated through a vacuum that made people uneasy? Or was it the fact that the distances were so vast? I suspect it was a little of each. That which had been overlooked before could no longer be denied. There was action at a distance. Across hundreds of millions of miles of empty space. This bothered people. It even bothered Newton. He wrote about not believing in action at a distance, even though he had just devised the world's first field theory. (He was not the only person to have a hard time coming to grips with his own discoveries.)

Action at a distance has also been used, classically, to refer to action traveling faster than the speed of light. But this did not come up in Newton's time. That there should be a finite speed of propagation wasn't an issue. In fact, Newton proved that angular momentum would not be preserved unless gravity propagated instantaneously.

:How do we reconcile that with the fact that it is propagated at the finite speed of light? Classical mechanics is completely consistent with special relativity under the assumption that the speed of light is infinite. Newton was doing a relativistically correct proof, as long as c = infinity.

Later on, as the finiteness of the speed of light became known, the questions arose whether the effects of fields (electric, magnetic, and gravitational) could travel faster than the speed of light. Such an effect might have been called "action at a distance", and would have been spooky. But the issue was pretty much settled in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The issue arose again in the mid 20th century, referring to the possibility that fields (this time the quantum field) might mediate actions faster than light. The problem is often posited in terms of transmission of information faster than light, which would violate common assumptions about causality.

And that's where we stand now, though "non-locality" is a much better modern term. I hope this helps.

[[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 14:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:General theory of relativity

2009-11-14T00:14:38Z

DanHutchin: /* Proofread? */

==Higher math template?==

Question: I know we have this template for sections that get into early-undergrad math:

{{Template:Math-h}}

But the quantitative section is going to make (gentle) reference to tensor algebra and some aspects of differential geometry. Do we have a template that somehow conveys "this section is hard-core math, but don't be scared?" Or maybe something that gets across the idea that you don't have to follow everything in this section to understand this article?

==Proofread?==

I'm going to leave this page half-done for tonight and pick it up tomorrow. Anybody available to give what's there right now a proofread? I'd love any and all feedback. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 18:45, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:The math is way out of my depth, but I tried clarifying the section about Eddington's experiment. It now says what I think it said - if I'm way off-base, please correct me. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)
::Yep, everything in there seems okay. Can't wait to read the rest of the article.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 19:14, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-08T17:17:08Z

DanHutchin: /* Should slavery be translated differently? */

==Liberal Rants Against Project==

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project. And saying this does not make me a "liberal" or a "vandal", it makes me a Christian and someone objective enough to see phonies like the people on here for what you are. Usurpers and false Christians.
[[User:GregHarris|GregHarris]] 12:23, 7 October 2009(EDT)

:Greg, many now-established Bible translations throughout history have met similar opposition. No one here is trying to "insert a political agenda" - the objective is to clarify (not obscure or distort) the intended meaning, compensating for words that have shifted and making full use of new terms that have become available. If you think that there are flaws in our efforts, about which we remain humble, please point them out and suggest improvements.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:25, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Here is a partial list of the translators considered liberal by this project:

* Dr. Boyce Blackwelder. Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana.
* Dr. E. M. Blaiklock. Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Auckland, Titirangi, Auckland, New Zealand.
* Dr. James L. Boyer. Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. John A. Burns. Academic Dean, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida.
* William J. Cameron. Principal Emeritus, Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh, Scotland.
* Dr. A. Glenn Campbell. Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Greek, and Theology, Montana Institute of the Bible, Ottawa, Kansas.
* Dr. Gary C. Cohen. Lecturer, Miami Christian College, Miami, Florida.
* Dr. Huber L. Drumwright. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. William K. Eichhorst. President of Academic Affairs, Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.
* Dr. Virtus E. Gideon. Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. Robert L. Hendren. Minister, Donelson Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee.
* Dr. Robert G. Hoerber. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
* Dr. Ronald Jones. Associate Professor, Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, Norfolk, Virginia.
* Dr. Charles R. Smith. Professor of Christian Theology and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Does this site have any "translators" who have degrees from "seminaries" that aren't unaccredited bible colleges? No please, before I get a snarky reply, Union Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Drew Divinity are serious, accredited seminaries. Miami Christian College is not. The Montana Institute of the Bible does not exactly have an international reputation for cutting-edge biblical scholarship. And before I get the second snarky reply, I teach at a private Baptist university that takes academic rigor and scholarship seriously. Seriously enough to where no one here would attempt to "translate" the KJV. Either work with the original Greek and Hebrew or don't waste time with this.

: We welcome the "experts" from the liberal schools you list. We welcome your contributions. But I'm not hopeful. The reality is that the biggest source of translation error is political bias, and you're probably as liberal as your fellow teachers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

* Dr. John A. Sproule. Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. Harry A. Sturz. Professor Emeritus of Greek, Biola College, La Mirada, California.
* Dr. Joseph S. Wang. Professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.
* Dr. Phillip R. Williams. Registrar, Professor of New Testament, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington.
* Dr. A. Skevington Wood. Principal, Cliff College, Calver, Sheffield, England.
* Dr. Arthur L. Farstad. New Testament Editor, Dallas, Texas.
* Dr. Lewis A. Foster. Professor of New Testament, Cincinnati Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.

:: I bet over 80% of the above list vote for [[Obama]] for President. That's their right, but let's not pretend they don't have liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Sir, you have born false witness against your neighbor! Concordia Seminary and its faculty are most assuredly NOT liberal! What's more, I take exception to your whole notion of a "liberal" Bible. I know both Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, and can tell you that the ESV is a very accurate translation. If you stand accused by Scripture, you are wrong! Period. End of story. You should not commit the sin of eisegesis in order to further your goals. That is, unless you're just pulling a fast one on all of us... [[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::: Then it's a very good thing he didn't, isn't it? He said 80%, not 100%. What is more, if you actually READ the page instead of jumping into the talk page to sling accusations, you'd know exactly what issues we take with the ESV and other translations. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to this project, try to stay open-minded. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
No, that is exactly what you are doing. I'm a proud Christian Conservative, but this is ridiculous. Replacing "rich" with "miserly"? "Kill" with "murder"? How you switch God's words like this? You don't know he meant miserly over rich. And replacing "liberal" with "generous" just because you don't want to mention them? Again, I think they're as stupid as anyone, but it's obvious your just promoting your own political agenda at the cost of God's word. How can you call yourselves Christians and partake in this blasphemy. [[User:Darmientie|Darmientie]] 17:27, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:Darmientie, you complain like a liberal and yet claim to be a "proud Christian Conservative." Guess what: conservatives don't capitalize the "C" in "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm not reading translations, sir, I am reading Greek. In Greek, "paidion," or "child" is neuter. In other words, the Bible, God's Holy Word in its original form, does call a child "it." You have no knowledge of the scriptures, or the power therein! You are an eisegete, and a heretic, and you ought to keep your mouth shut on matters of which you have no knowledge![[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.

:You're not confused and you know it. This has nothing to do with "harmonizing" the Bible with conservative "doctrine." The project is explained quite clearly on the page, and on this talk page. The fact that you call conservative reasoning and logic "doctrine" just demonstrates that you don't understand conservatism and don't understand what we're trying to do here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project? --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:48, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: Let's also please consider at least the chapter in its entirety when attempting to criticize the project. The verse prior to the one you reference, Revelation 22:18, gives consequences for adding to the "words of the book". I find it especially interesting that you use quotation marks when referring to the "words of the book"... perhaps you're aware that most translations phrase these two verses in such a way that it's very clear the book referenced is the book of revelations, not the bible as a whole? While I agree with the need for caution, and am actually somewhat affronted by the hubris of this project (or any translation of the bible, period), I dislike it when the bible is misquoted as a scare tactic. [[User:Downkey|Downkey]]

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, it's more than that. We consult the Greek sometimes and benefit from other guidelines in [[Conservative Bible Project]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Sometimes. Wow! Impressive! [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Language is never 100% precise. Sometimes it is obvious what was meant, despite the inartful articulation provided by the best terminology available. Mark 6:22 has an example of this, and we improved on the Greek word for "girl". See [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:31, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::The trouble with that example is, we already ''know'' what "κορασιων" means — it means "little girl", the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn't want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms — they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means "little girl" instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he ''meant'' to say? That's not creating an unbiased translation — that's shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God? --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Fine, κορασιων means "little girl," but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the "rich, complex" Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we're not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Obvious? Seems to me you're injecting the meanings ''you'' want based on ''your'' ideas about what the text ''should'' say. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:13, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: I have an open mind about this. There is a different between "original intent," which is what we've suggested, and "textualism", which seems to be what you want (or you may simply be criticizing this project for political reasons). I tend to think "original intent" is a better approach, but welcome other comments and suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:26, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::How is "original intent" determined? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:58, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: The same way as with anything else: looking at the text in context and as informed by the thinking of the authors. Most people interpret the Constitution the same way. This is particularly important when powerful new concepts go beyond the abilities of the existing language.

::::::: 99% of the time the text itself is clear and definitive, but intent matters for that other 1%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Outside of the text itself, what evidence do we have of “the thinking of the authors”? One huge difference between biblical and constitutional hermeneutics is that we know who the authors of the Constitution were and we can consult their other writings for guidance in determining their intentions. And are you suggesting that the Bible’s authors had “powerful new concepts” that they were unable to express in their languages? How can we know what those concepts were if the long-dead authors could not convey them to us? Is it even possible to have a concept that cannot be expressed in language? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:We don't need "other writings" to determine original intent. Context and logic are more useful. I gave you the specific example of this that we have already encountered: Mark 6:22, where we improved on the Greek word for "girl". You wouldn't address it.

:The bestselling Bible today, the [[NIV]], is a thought-for-thought translation that inherently relies on intent as well as text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::I don't see how your translation of the Greek of Mark 6:22 is an improvement. The case for that has not been convincingly made. Thought-for-thought translation is not equivalent to a hermeneutic objective of recovering original intent. And you have not addressed most of my questions to you. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:46, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I, also, question the need for an "improvement" in the translation of Mark 6:22. If you took the verse separately, out of context, then maybe the clarification is needed, but if you read the verse in the context it is written in, then the clarification is not needed at all. The actions of the "damsel" or "girl" show what type of person she is and her role in the story being related. I think that questioning the word usage of the original authors that God inspired to write His Word is stepping over the bounds of a faithful translation. --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:29, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Just to make sure I understand- this is not a translation based on a political agenda, it just happens to be undertaken by people who recognize the "superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV". Here's my concern: as articulated in the project page, one of the source of errors in current translations can be addressed by updating the language to convey "new concepts of Christianity". My question is: from whence spring these new concepts of Christianity? What is the source? From what authority did these new concepts arise?

:::: The "new" refers to the time of Christ. The source is Christ. I'll clarify that on the project page. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: OK, let me see if I understand you --
1. The KJV has a liberal bias? How so?
2. People who cannot read Greek are going to retranslate the Bible to make something superior to the KJV
3. You are going to use "conservative language" yet there is no political motivation?
4. You cite the "conservapedia law" which is no law at all, merely wishful thinking with no evidence to back it up, as a motivating force for the project?

I think you are overreaching and that this will not end well. Still, if you are going through with it, may God guide you.

[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 20:57, 7 October 2009 (MST)

: The [[KJV]] is no longer the bestselling Bible, and as time goes by it will be used less and less. We do not criticize the KJV; indeed, we're using it as a foundation. Note that the English language is changing and some non-authentic passages did creep into the KJV.

: Increasingly liberal translations are appearing almost annually. Did you complain about those? If not, I wonder why you object to one conservative approach.

: I have studied Greek, but it's clear that the greatest translation errors are due to political bias, not lack of understanding of Greek.

: Thanks for your well-wishing conclusion. How about contributing to the project? You're welcome to learn and teach with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.

:Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.

:I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I predicted that perfectly, didn't I? Lucky guess on my part? Nope. Show me an evolutionist, and I'll show you someone who thinks of himself as well-read and yet never, ever reads the Bible. The correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. Indeed, the correlation is so perfect that one could almost define an evolutionist as an educated person who never reads the Bible. Indeed, I'll add that to the entry here.

::: If evolution were not simply an anti-religious belief system, then that correlation would not be so high. The correlation is nowhere near that high for other scientific theories, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Not a lucky guess since again like most good little Jewish boys I started studying the text from a young age. As for not reading the Bible, I'm scheduled to give the student sermon three weeks from now at Friday night services in three weeks (the corresponding section for that week is the story of Noah) and I'm currently in the process of brushing up on the section dealing with the offerings for [[Sukkot]] (in Numbers 29) since it is thematically relevant (being the middle of the holiday). In any event, the relevant point I was trying to make was about the names. That seems to have been done. (Incidentally, if you want a good resource for looking at various versions of the Biblical texts, http://unbound.biola.edu/ is really helpful). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: Joshua, above you said you were drawing on your childhood knowledge, but now seem to imply (without saying so) that you do currently read from a few older passages in the Bible. If so, you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it. Indeed, the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today. No person ignorant of it (as most evolutionists are) can be considered well-read or learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Andy, what about Confucian scholars? Can they, born in a non-western society, help that they have not had the same exposure to the Bible that you have? What you mean by "well-read" and "learned" is actually a reflection on what you consider worth reading. [[User:4m4z1ng|4m4z1ng]] 10:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Mr Schlafly, you asserted that, "the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today". With all due respect for your own personal opinions, Mr. Schlafly, this is a sweeping and really unfounded generalization that I feel is detrimental to the nature of the discussion here. I personally am a devout Catholic, and yet I firmly believe in the theory of evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of Evolution as an acceptable belief, so long as the idea of God as a prime mover is incorporated. To say that being an evolutionist automatically constitutes an individual who outwardly and totally rejects not just the Bible's value in a religious sense but also in a cultural and historical sense is a truly absurd and careless assumption. Indeed, I have had a great deal of friends and professors whom I have discussed the subject with, and even the most staunch atheists have generally agreed with the idea that the Bible is one of, if not the most historically and culturally significant text ever written. The way you attempt to make individuals who disagree with your own viewpoint seem like philistines is not just ignorant in its own right, it is downright childish. When you and others make broad-stroked stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of a large group of individuals, it only serves to harm your own ethos as an individual with an opinion to share. This has the potential to be a intelligent, reasonable forum for informed discussion of the issue from all viewpoints, but such immature generalizations prevent this page from achieving this potential. I hope that in the future, we can be more civil in discussion on this page, because many individuals are making intelligent points on both sides of the argument without resorting to political pandering. -- [[User:Pnino|Pnino]] 20:24, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Pnino, you say "with all due respect," but you don't sound very respectful. You insult him, calling him childish and ignorant, and then advocate civil discussion. Feel free to take your name calling and hypocrisy elsewhere. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:49, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== I don't get the criticisms of this project ==

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. The number one reason why most people are [[liberal]]s is so that they can cling to a [[double standard]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

==Footnotes and commentary==
In deference to JoshuaZ, I suggest the use of a footnotes feature at the bottom of each article, describing certain words, their origins in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, their meanings, etc, as well as a commentary feature. This information should be specific to each chapter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Remove references to wine or other alcohol ==

Every sane person knows that drinking alcohol is a sin. I propose we remove all references to alcohol from the Bible. As both liberal and conservative historians will tell you, water in ancient times was often very dirty and contaminated. That is why Jesus turned water into wine--to make the water safe to drink. Liberals take it too far and suggest that Jesus might have been a drunk!!

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/christianity/4759-jesus-drunk-glutton.html

I suggest we clean up this liberal madness and remove all references of wine or other alcohol from our translation. I also suggest getting rid of all instances where god directly kills or commands others to kill. A just god which, created all life, would not extinguish it so blatantly.

Thank you.

: Interesting point about wine being used as an alternative to dirty water, but your recommendation obviously goes way overboard. We're not rewriting the substance of the Bible here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

If drinking is a sin, then why is it that when Noah gets drunk after the flood, Canaan (who didn't even have anything to do with the ordeal) was cursed into slavery cause Ham looked upon the nakedness?

:Noah was a sinner. It's not rocket science. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Minor contention on Commandment X==
As someone with a love for the meaning and sounds of language and what it can be used for, and how good words claim the listener, I must take issue with taking Commandment X as a flat rule. I agree that empty words don't add anything, but sometimes an extra word or two can add a lot. To use an example close at hand (and even in the Commandment!), 'Lord God'. It'd get stale if it were used completely in place of ''Lord'', but (to me at least) ''Lord God'' strikes me as a form of reference suitable for powerful and important moments. The Lord (or if you prefer the other form of address, God) listens to your prayers and cares for your soul, but the Lord God is about to deliver the Word unto you, and you'd better pay attention. Also, people are more likely to put a little more formality in addressing God if it's important. It's a matter of the right tone for the right occasion, and the Bible does indeed contain a lot of occasion, and therefore deserves to be translated with befitting tone to convey its events and messages more powerfully in the mind of the reader. Sometimes a word or two makes the difference there. [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 22:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

: Your point is well-taken, but it is also worth avoiding senseless repetition. Let's face it: soundbites are decreasing and conciseness is valued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Definitely avoid repetition. For the Lord/Lord God example, I'd use it when God is, well, showing people who they must listen to, or when people are beseeching/praying. Context, it all depends on context... [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 00:04, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I'm open to your suggestions, and have already learned from them. Please feel free to translate some phrases as others have. Several of us are currently working on [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]], and we're about half finished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Should slavery be translated differently? ==

Is there another term for slavery that accurately describes what Biblical slavery was, without the pervasive racism and transatlantic slave trade?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:I don't know of another term at this point. St. Perpetua was the slave owner of St. Felicitas. There may be a deeper relationship; economic ties, survival, shelter, and family that may be able to explain slavery in that generation. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PERPETUA.HTM] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:52, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::It wasn't entirely race-based then, and there wasn't a massive slave trade. Slavery in Roman times was very different from antebellum slavery in America, which is what the word "slavery" means today.

::I'm not saying a more precise alternative is available in English, but it's an issue to consider.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree. Weren't Roman slaves prisoners of war? And weren't they free after a certain period? If both of these are true, then perhaps "indentured servant" would work. Yes, it has some connotations, but it's much less pejorative than "slavery." I'm trying to think of other words that might be good here, and coming up blank. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:05, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Roman slaves weren't necessarily prisoners of war, and many (indeed most) of them never gained freedom. As a general rule, the only slaves who gained freedom held high positions in their master's household (for example as manager of the other slaves, or as a manager of finance) and it was very uncommon, to say the least, for your average food-bringing, vase-polishing, door-opening slave to gain freedom. If they took wives then any children they had were also slaves. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::But Roman slaves did escape, I think, and perhaps frequently so. Indeed, I think [[Epistle to Philemon]] relates to an example around A.D. 60.

:::::The point is that "slavery" today means an '''institution''' of racism. That is not what the Bible is talking about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I think "slavery" in the historical American context is, broadly speaking, part-and-parcel with racism, but I don't think that slavery throughout history always meant enslaving those of a different race. My (admittedly non-expert) impression is that sometimes slaves were prisoners of war, sometimes those captured in far-off lands, sometimes children of slaves, sometimes the poor, etc. Of course it is easier to enslave someone who is perceived as inherently very different than the slave-owners. In America, the race aspect was pretty complex; for example some slaves were their masters' biological children, thus the need I suppose for the "one drop" rule. 
"Slavery" today tends to be used to refer to situations where a usually poor, usually uneducated, sometimes in-the-country-illegally person is isolated from others and forced into labor (or worse). Slaves are kept essentially captive through force, intimidation, and/or illegal immigration status. Sometimes the law sides with the slave and prosecutes the slaveholder, but not always. Race is less likely to be a factor, though nationality is. 
The term "prisoner of war" today involves widely-accepted rules as to how prisoners are to be treated; generally speaking they are not subject to forced labor or sexually abused, thus they are not considered to be slaves. I don't know if that was the case throughout history; I think it is likely that it was not the case. 
It's difficult, isn't it?! [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], perhaps it would help if you could explain a bit more about Biblical slavery and how it differed from that of today and our country's experience in the past? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

: The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that.

: That's not the meaning intended in the Bible. Slavery was not racial, and it was not an institution. "Prisoner of war" may be closer to the Roman meaning.

: Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::''"The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that."'' I am afraid not. The modern slave trade, while not that well established in the United States, is now so endemic in the rest of the world that today, English-speaking or not, slavery is now associated with three words: poor, dispossessed and vulnerable. Skin colour doesn't come into it as all too often today's slaves have come from areas of the world that have experienced a recent outbreak of war, lawlessness, famine or severe economic crisis. Indeed, so pernicious is the slave trade that were you to ask somebody living in the UK what slavery meant they would in all likely-hood answer East European and Russian women being illegally shipped into the UK to work as prostitutes, or male Chinese workers being illegally shipped into the country to work for gangmasters (the Chinese workers left to drown on a beach that they were combing for cockles being a good example).--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 13:17, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

== Oversight? ==

This is a re-post of something I posted under the user name JF1971, before it was blocked for some reason.

----

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project?--[[User:ChrisBo|ChrisBo]] 14:46, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:ChrisBo, I understand your concern that there be a continuous reference to the Greek. Be assured that those of us who have been doing a good deal of translating have been making constant and careful references to the Greek, and consulting Greek scholarly sources to maintain accuracy.
:What you misunderstand, what many seem to misunderstand, is that we're not ADDING conservative thoughts and principles to the Bible, we're REVEALING them. The Bible is the ultimate document when it comes to conservatism, logic, reason, and morality, and we're attempting to show this better my removing the dillution of these principles that have crept in over the centuries of translations, or been introduced into once-excellent translations by the changing meanings of word. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::...by, for instance, changing one perfectly good and easily-translated word to another, less savory, one when it suits your ideology, because you know what the author of Mark "really meant". --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 21:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Without the chapter and verse, I have no idea what you're talking about, but "less savory" makes me believe you are talking about 6:28. Do you deny that "temptress" accurately describes her? Either contribute, or leave. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:12, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::This discussion has opened my eyes: liberals don't like the word "temptress"! Wikipedia even redirects it! The [[ESV]] does not use the English word in its translation, not even once. I'm going to add it to [[Word Analysis of Bible]]. Every day is a new revelation in this project. Actually it's a dozen new revelations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Harry Potter

2009-09-30T17:53:11Z

DanHutchin: /* Heading off a possible edit war */

==The Onion==
I question this material:
:These claims were conflated and exacerbated by a piece in the satirical newspaper [[The Onion]] purporting to interview children who had become involved in satanism and witchcraft after reading the Harry Potter books and could now cast spells.[http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm] [http://web.archive.org/web/20000815214418/http://www.theonion.com/onion3625/harry_potter.html] Rowling has denied such claims.[http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm] The mainstream media has not taken this claim seriously.
The Onion is a stitch and a lot of people love it, but I doubt that it was an important influence in the Harry Potter phenomenon. The (very good) article cited to support the sentence "Rowling has denied such claims" says nothing about The Onion or about claims that readers of the books learned to cast spells. I haven't bothered to check the history to see who added this, but I suspect a leg-pull. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)

: The Snopes reference particularly mentions the Harry Potter article and asserts that it was circulated as evidence. See the reference in the section you removed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:36, 4 March 2007 (EST)

"The books have even been accused of promoting witchcraft."

Wow, that's pretty deep! --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:45, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::Maybe I was wrong. I ''hate'' it when that happens.

::I checked the Rowling reference but not the others, my bad.

::I'm not quite ready to put it back, though, until I'm convinced it really was influential. The ''Onion'' piece appeared in 2000. And Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Harry_Potter#Religious_opposition_to_witchcraft_themes Controversy over Harry Potter] article says that "Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association’s list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether." So ''The Onion'' was clearly satirizing a controversy that was already in full swing. How much influence did the "Dear Christian" email really have in amplifying it?

::I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Witch craft ==

I added some contribution to this article discussing how it deals with the topic of witches and wizards and communication between magical and non-magical people. Why was it deleted. I know what I wrote about since I have read all the 6 books several times and am eagerly waiting for the 7th :-)

This was what I wrote http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=27741..

I thought it would fit in with the rest of the site ;-). Anyways can anyone tell me why those blue borders appeared and how to remove them.

== Looking for God in Harry Potter ==

I have a book, ''Looking for God in Harry Potter'' by John Granger, ISBN: 1414306342, which looks for the hidden meaning in the Harry Potter series. There are many other things in the book that would be helpful in the CP article. I would like to colloborate with someone that could integrate the book with the CP article, without plagiarizing the book. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:21, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Accusations?==

Cut from criticisms section:

:The books have also been accused of promoting witchcraft or [[wicca]].<ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/potter.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1735623.stm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm]</ref>

The first ref I followed mentions the [[occult]] nature of the magic in the books, but I fail to see how "Carol" is accusing the books of '''promoting witchcraft'''. My understanding (as a Christian educator myself) is that the books are fantasy in the same genre as the [[Narnia]] books of [[C.S. Lewis]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

:If you take a look at the recent criticisms added to the Chronicles of Narnia entry, I think you'll see that Narnia is far from innocent and harmless itself. The whole POINT of Harry Potter is to tell a story where witches are heroes. It's hard to imagine how such a twisted perversion can do anything BUT promote witchcraft and the occult. Thousands of pages are spent glorifying people who practice magic, something forbidden by the Word of God.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 22:30, 30 December 2008 (EST)

How can a book promote something that does not exist? Saying that the ''Harry Potter'' novels promote witchcraft is like saying that the ''Star Wars'' movies promote intergalactic space-travel. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 17:21, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

=Heading off a possible edit war=

I have noticed recent activity on the Harry Potter page. Whilst I understand that such matters can stir strong opinion, I am also aware that this is a site that builds trustworthy articles through consensus amongst trustworthy contributors. If the current theme of editing continues, then may I suggest that we revert back to the last edit peer-reviewed and cleared by an administrator that was made before all the recent edits, such as the revert made by TK on 13:05, 24 June 2009, or by TerryH on 22:10, 22 June 2009.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 18:45, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
::OK I protected it. Note that "conservative Christians" is not a theological category. All of the quoted critics have been Fundamentalists and they seem to be relying on the Old Testament warnings to Jews to avoid pagan witchcraft. The warnings are not repeated in the New Testament.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:33, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks Mr Jenson, I had a horrible feeling that that kind of edit warring would turn into a large troll-magnet, if it already hadn't.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 13:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Harry Potter

2009-09-29T22:46:02Z

DanHutchin: whoops, too many =

Talk:Harry Potter

2009-09-29T22:45:08Z

DanHutchin:

==The Onion==
I question this material:
:These claims were conflated and exacerbated by a piece in the satirical newspaper [[The Onion]] purporting to interview children who had become involved in satanism and witchcraft after reading the Harry Potter books and could now cast spells.[http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm] [http://web.archive.org/web/20000815214418/http://www.theonion.com/onion3625/harry_potter.html] Rowling has denied such claims.[http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm] The mainstream media has not taken this claim seriously.
The Onion is a stitch and a lot of people love it, but I doubt that it was an important influence in the Harry Potter phenomenon. The (very good) article cited to support the sentence "Rowling has denied such claims" says nothing about The Onion or about claims that readers of the books learned to cast spells. I haven't bothered to check the history to see who added this, but I suspect a leg-pull. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)

: The Snopes reference particularly mentions the Harry Potter article and asserts that it was circulated as evidence. See the reference in the section you removed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:36, 4 March 2007 (EST)

"The books have even been accused of promoting witchcraft."

Wow, that's pretty deep! --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:45, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::Maybe I was wrong. I ''hate'' it when that happens.

::I checked the Rowling reference but not the others, my bad.

::I'm not quite ready to put it back, though, until I'm convinced it really was influential. The ''Onion'' piece appeared in 2000. And Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Harry_Potter#Religious_opposition_to_witchcraft_themes Controversy over Harry Potter] article says that "Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association’s list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether." So ''The Onion'' was clearly satirizing a controversy that was already in full swing. How much influence did the "Dear Christian" email really have in amplifying it?

::I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Witch craft ==

I added some contribution to this article discussing how it deals with the topic of witches and wizards and communication between magical and non-magical people. Why was it deleted. I know what I wrote about since I have read all the 6 books several times and am eagerly waiting for the 7th :-)

This was what I wrote http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=27741..

I thought it would fit in with the rest of the site ;-). Anyways can anyone tell me why those blue borders appeared and how to remove them.

== Looking for God in Harry Potter ==

I have a book, ''Looking for God in Harry Potter'' by John Granger, ISBN: 1414306342, which looks for the hidden meaning in the Harry Potter series. There are many other things in the book that would be helpful in the CP article. I would like to colloborate with someone that could integrate the book with the CP article, without plagiarizing the book. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:21, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Accusations?==

Cut from criticisms section:

:The books have also been accused of promoting witchcraft or [[wicca]].<ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/potter.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1735623.stm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm]</ref>

The first ref I followed mentions the [[occult]] nature of the magic in the books, but I fail to see how "Carol" is accusing the books of '''promoting witchcraft'''. My understanding (as a Christian educator myself) is that the books are fantasy in the same genre as the [[Narnia]] books of [[C.S. Lewis]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

:If you take a look at the recent criticisms added to the Chronicles of Narnia entry, I think you'll see that Narnia is far from innocent and harmless itself. The whole POINT of Harry Potter is to tell a story where witches are heroes. It's hard to imagine how such a twisted perversion can do anything BUT promote witchcraft and the occult. Thousands of pages are spent glorifying people who practice magic, something forbidden by the Word of God.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 22:30, 30 December 2008 (EST)

How can a book promote something that does not exist? Saying that the ''Harry Potter'' novels promote witchcraft is like saying that the ''Star Wars'' movies promote intergalactic space-travel. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 17:21, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

=Heading off a possible edit war==

I have noticed recent activity on the Harry Potter page. Whilst I understand that such matters can stir strong opinion, I am also aware that this is a site that builds trustworthy articles through consensus amongst trustworthy contributors. If the current theme of editing continues, then may I suggest that we revert back to the last edit peer-reviewed and cleared by an administrator that was made before all the recent edits, such as the revert made by TK on 13:05, 24 June 2009, or by TerryH on 22:10, 22 June 2009.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 18:45, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Daily Mail

2009-09-24T19:14:09Z

DanHutchin: Missing ref

[[Image:Dail Mail front page.jpg|right|thumb|250px|July 15 2005 edition]]
The '''''Daily Mail''''' is the second biggest selling British [[tabloid]] newspaper, and is very [[liberal]] in its editorial stances, supporting euthanasia<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref>, and is noted for its stance on gun control and the NHS. It has a Sunday edition called ''The Mail on Sunday''. Its two million plus circulation is one of the largest of any daily newspaper in English. <ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766</ref>

==Early History==

The ''Daily Mail'' was founded as a [[broadsheet]] newspaper in 1896, but changed to a tabloid format 75 years later. Its closest rival in terms of being less liberal is the ''[[Daily Express]]'', which sells far fewer copies.

When it was launched by Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (who later became respectively [[Lord Northcliffe]] and [[Lord Rothermere]]) it made an unashamed bid for the mass market. It was published at half the price of other newspapers, and kept its coverage both more concise and more populist. This approach led to it being highly successful.<ref> Taylor, S. J. ''The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail.'' </ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' also set out to be entertaining, using in particular competitions as a means of promotion, and focusing on human-interest stories as a way of attracting readers to whom in-depth political analysis did not appeal. Among other promotions, they began the [[Ideal Home Exhibition]], which continues to be held in [[London]] every year.

The paper lost circulation during [[World War I]], when it spoke out in favor of [[conscription]] after the outbreak of war, and particularly when it attacked [[Herbert Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], who was at that time a national hero. It was accused by the Prime Minister, [[Herbert Asquith]], of disloyalty to the country.

After the resignation of Asquith, [[David Lloyd George]] asked Lord Northcliffe to join his cabinet, but Northcliffe refused.

==1920s==

After Northcliffe died in 1922, his brother Lord Rothermere took control. It was under his regime that the ''Daily Mail'' published the [[Zinoviev Letter]], a forgery that seemed to indicate that the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] was planning a violent revolution. Many people believed this was responsible for the defeat of the [[Labour Party]] in the 1924 general election held a few days later, and since then some Labour party members have been known to refer to the ''Daily Mail'' as “The Forgers’ Gazette”.

==1930s==

In the 1930s, the ''Daily Mail'' was politically sympathetic to [[fascism]], and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the [[British Union of Fascists]] and their leader [[Oswald Mosley]] in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The ''Mail''’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both [[Benito Mussolini]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] and his [[Nazi Party]] – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the [[Sudetenland]] in 1938. The paper also published ''[[The Protocols of The Elders of Zion]]'' in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.<ref> Griffiths, Richard. ''Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-39''.</ref>

[[Neville Chamberlain]]’s [[appeasement]] policy was supported by the ''Daily Mail'' until after the [[Munich Agreement]], but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of [[Hungary]] in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down.

==Support for euthanasia==

The Daily Mail recently published an article in support of euthanasia<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref>. The article and author of the piece stated that:

*"When I wake up in the watches of the night, I still wish that I had killed my mother. In her late eighties, this spirited, independent, active (almost hyperactive) old lady began to slither downhill."
*"For a few months, I felt almost grateful that she did not know what was happening to her."
*"She was never happy for a single minute in those last years, until the last day when a kind of peace descended…If only she had died before she reached this state! If only her hitherto dignified life had ended as nature so plainly meant it to end."
*"As I began by saying, I wish I had possessed the courage to smother her with a pillow, rather than leaving her in that living hell for over two years. Had the roles been reversed, I would have begged her to kill me."
*"I do not know whether my poor mother would have wanted an assisted suicide or not. All I know, since watching her agonisingly slow death, is that I would most definitely want to take my own life, or for someone to take it for me, before I reached this stage."
*"I see no virtue whatsoever in these terminal circumstances, in pretending that there is some mystical thing called 'life' which God or Morality have forbidden us to terminate…The half-life of paralysis, and pain, and misery for all around you is no life at all. In my view it is far better to end it all in circumstances which are, if possible, in your control."
*"So yes, I would welcome the legalisation of assisted suicide in this country and would support any moves to bring it on to the statute books…The trouble is that Keir Starmer's guidelines are no help at all - in fact, they mean we are in the ludicrous position of the law saying one thing and doing another."
*"Increasing numbers of people in this country believe, like me, there is an overwhelming case for changing the law. The two objections to changing the law do not stand up…One is that the system is open to abuse. It is claimed that unscrupulous carers or family will force sick or elderly patients to 'opt' for suicide because they do not want to be a burden…But the sorry reality is that unscrupulous and unpleasant people will always abuse the weak and the elderly, whatever the law. Their malign activities will go on whether the assisted suicide is legalised or not…The second objection to legalising assisted suicide is that there is often something noble about people suffering an illness for as long as nature or God decree…There are those who cite the example of Jade Goody - a girl who lived in many ways a terrible and immoral life but who bravely used her terminal cancer to give her children a decent future…Yet most cancer patients are not represented by Max Clifford and will not make a million from their prolonged deaths…On the contrary, for many families the continuation of a terminally sick patient's lingering condition in expensive care can be ruinously expensive, especially if the relatives have to give up their jobs to become carers."
*"It is true that unscrupulous children might make parents feel that they are a burden. But the illness and decrepitude of some patients is often placing a burden - an intolerable burden - on families, making it impossible for them to live their lives and calling for reserves of goodness or sheer energy which they simply do not possess."
*"It is not immoral for carers and younger family members to feel entitled to a bit of a life apart from the agonising bedside, and I fail to see why the preservation of life in such circumstances is always to be seen as virtuous."
*"But beyond this, in a free society, it seems intolerable that grown-up sentient beings can not decide when to bring life to an end, without the added horror that those they love best will be criminalised."

==Recent history==

The fortunes of the ''Daily Mail'' were revived after a decline in the 1950s by its then-editor Sir David English, and its current editor Paul Dacre continues that trend. He has widened the paper’s market by launching an Irish edition and a summarized edition for UK expatriates.

==Political and editorial stances==

The ''Daily Mail'' claims to represent Middle England and Conservative values, opposing the [[liberal]] establishment. It generally opposes the [[European Union]] and the increasing trend to see Britain as part of [[Europe]]. It is usually against immigration, although it has supported the wish of white asylum-seekers from [[Zimbabwe]] to remain in [[Britain]]. It is generally against [[abortion]] and in favour of the [[monarchy]], tax cuts and harsher penalties for criminals. It is generally supportive of [[Israel]], although it has recently been attacked for its lack of support for the war in [[Iraq]].

It generally takes a strong stand against criminality. It is often referred to by the left wing press as "The Hate Mail" or "The Daily Hate", because of a quotation from Lord Northcliffe that said the formula for success was to give readers a "daily hate".

It perceives many public media such as the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] as biased to the left politically. Its columnists tend to be politically right-wing. It endorses the [[Conservative Party]] in most elections, and publicly repudiates groups like the [[British National Party]], who are associated with far-right politics.

The Mail is often accused of fear mongering with numerous health scare articles (recent examples include "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" and "Mouthwash 'causes oral cancer' and should be pulled from supermarkets, say experts").

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers|Daily Mail]]

Daily Mail

2009-09-24T19:12:52Z

DanHutchin: Updating page since Daily Mail included an article supporting assisted suicide.

[[Image:Dail Mail front page.jpg|right|thumb|250px|July 15 2005 edition]]
The '''''Daily Mail''''' is the second biggest selling British [[tabloid]] newspaper, and is very [[liberal]] in its editorial stances, supporting euthanasia<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref>, and is noted for its stance on gun control and the NHS. It has a Sunday edition called ''The Mail on Sunday''. Its two million plus circulation is one of the largest of any daily newspaper in English. <ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766</ref>

==Early History==

The ''Daily Mail'' was founded as a [[broadsheet]] newspaper in 1896, but changed to a tabloid format 75 years later. Its closest rival in terms of being less liberal is the ''[[Daily Express]]'', which sells far fewer copies.

When it was launched by Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (who later became respectively [[Lord Northcliffe]] and [[Lord Rothermere]]) it made an unashamed bid for the mass market. It was published at half the price of other newspapers, and kept its coverage both more concise and more populist. This approach led to it being highly successful.<ref> Taylor, S. J. ''The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail.'' </ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' also set out to be entertaining, using in particular competitions as a means of promotion, and focusing on human-interest stories as a way of attracting readers to whom in-depth political analysis did not appeal. Among other promotions, they began the [[Ideal Home Exhibition]], which continues to be held in [[London]] every year.

The paper lost circulation during [[World War I]], when it spoke out in favor of [[conscription]] after the outbreak of war, and particularly when it attacked [[Herbert Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], who was at that time a national hero. It was accused by the Prime Minister, [[Herbert Asquith]], of disloyalty to the country.

After the resignation of Asquith, [[David Lloyd George]] asked Lord Northcliffe to join his cabinet, but Northcliffe refused.

==1920s==

After Northcliffe died in 1922, his brother Lord Rothermere took control. It was under his regime that the ''Daily Mail'' published the [[Zinoviev Letter]], a forgery that seemed to indicate that the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] was planning a violent revolution. Many people believed this was responsible for the defeat of the [[Labour Party]] in the 1924 general election held a few days later, and since then some Labour party members have been known to refer to the ''Daily Mail'' as “The Forgers’ Gazette”.

==1930s==

In the 1930s, the ''Daily Mail'' was politically sympathetic to [[fascism]], and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the [[British Union of Fascists]] and their leader [[Oswald Mosley]] in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The ''Mail''’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both [[Benito Mussolini]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] and his [[Nazi Party]] – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the [[Sudetenland]] in 1938. The paper also published ''[[The Protocols of The Elders of Zion]]'' in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.<ref> Griffiths, Richard. ''Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-39''.</ref>

[[Neville Chamberlain]]’s [[appeasement]] policy was supported by the ''Daily Mail'' until after the [[Munich Agreement]], but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of [[Hungary]] in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down.

==Support for euthanasia==

The Daily Mail recently published an article in support of euthanasia. The article and author of the piece stated that:

*"When I wake up in the watches of the night, I still wish that I had killed my mother. In her late eighties, this spirited, independent, active (almost hyperactive) old lady began to slither downhill."
*"For a few months, I felt almost grateful that she did not know what was happening to her."
*"She was never happy for a single minute in those last years, until the last day when a kind of peace descended…If only she had died before she reached this state! If only her hitherto dignified life had ended as nature so plainly meant it to end."
*"As I began by saying, I wish I had possessed the courage to smother her with a pillow, rather than leaving her in that living hell for over two years. Had the roles been reversed, I would have begged her to kill me."
*"I do not know whether my poor mother would have wanted an assisted suicide or not. All I know, since watching her agonisingly slow death, is that I would most definitely want to take my own life, or for someone to take it for me, before I reached this stage."
*"I see no virtue whatsoever in these terminal circumstances, in pretending that there is some mystical thing called 'life' which God or Morality have forbidden us to terminate…The half-life of paralysis, and pain, and misery for all around you is no life at all. In my view it is far better to end it all in circumstances which are, if possible, in your control."
*"So yes, I would welcome the legalisation of assisted suicide in this country and would support any moves to bring it on to the statute books…The trouble is that Keir Starmer's guidelines are no help at all - in fact, they mean we are in the ludicrous position of the law saying one thing and doing another."
*"Increasing numbers of people in this country believe, like me, there is an overwhelming case for changing the law. The two objections to changing the law do not stand up…One is that the system is open to abuse. It is claimed that unscrupulous carers or family will force sick or elderly patients to 'opt' for suicide because they do not want to be a burden…But the sorry reality is that unscrupulous and unpleasant people will always abuse the weak and the elderly, whatever the law. Their malign activities will go on whether the assisted suicide is legalised or not…The second objection to legalising assisted suicide is that there is often something noble about people suffering an illness for as long as nature or God decree…There are those who cite the example of Jade Goody - a girl who lived in many ways a terrible and immoral life but who bravely used her terminal cancer to give her children a decent future…Yet most cancer patients are not represented by Max Clifford and will not make a million from their prolonged deaths…On the contrary, for many families the continuation of a terminally sick patient's lingering condition in expensive care can be ruinously expensive, especially if the relatives have to give up their jobs to become carers."
*"It is true that unscrupulous children might make parents feel that they are a burden. But the illness and decrepitude of some patients is often placing a burden - an intolerable burden - on families, making it impossible for them to live their lives and calling for reserves of goodness or sheer energy which they simply do not possess."
*"It is not immoral for carers and younger family members to feel entitled to a bit of a life apart from the agonising bedside, and I fail to see why the preservation of life in such circumstances is always to be seen as virtuous."
*"But beyond this, in a free society, it seems intolerable that grown-up sentient beings can not decide when to bring life to an end, without the added horror that those they love best will be criminalised."

==Recent history==

The fortunes of the ''Daily Mail'' were revived after a decline in the 1950s by its then-editor Sir David English, and its current editor Paul Dacre continues that trend. He has widened the paper’s market by launching an Irish edition and a summarized edition for UK expatriates.

==Political and editorial stances==

The ''Daily Mail'' claims to represent Middle England and Conservative values, opposing the [[liberal]] establishment. It generally opposes the [[European Union]] and the increasing trend to see Britain as part of [[Europe]]. It is usually against immigration, although it has supported the wish of white asylum-seekers from [[Zimbabwe]] to remain in [[Britain]]. It is generally against [[abortion]] and in favour of the [[monarchy]], tax cuts and harsher penalties for criminals. It is generally supportive of [[Israel]], although it has recently been attacked for its lack of support for the war in [[Iraq]].

It generally takes a strong stand against criminality. It is often referred to by the left wing press as "The Hate Mail" or "The Daily Hate", because of a quotation from Lord Northcliffe that said the formula for success was to give readers a "daily hate".

It perceives many public media such as the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] as biased to the left politically. Its columnists tend to be politically right-wing. It endorses the [[Conservative Party]] in most elections, and publicly repudiates groups like the [[British National Party]], who are associated with far-right politics.

The Mail is often accused of fear mongering with numerous health scare articles (recent examples include "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" and "Mouthwash 'causes oral cancer' and should be pulled from supermarkets, say experts").

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers|Daily Mail]]

The Sun

2009-09-18T01:08:30Z

DanHutchin: Included that the Sun supports the NHS

{{stub}}
'''The Sun''' is a British daily tabloid newspaper published by [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. The Sun originated as the [[Daily Herald]], a trade union owned paper, renamed and relaunched under new ownership as The Sun in 1964. It adopts a liberal political line, but its content is largely concerned with celebrity, sport and entertainment tittle-tattle and its continuing publication, despite protests, of 'Page 3 girls' - large photographs of bare-breasted young women on page 3. The Sun also has a policy of supporting the NHS. The Sun has the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the English-speaking world.

While it does not explicitly support any political party asides from when UK General Elections take place, The Sun usually makes it quite obvious which political party it is supporting at any one time, through the way its articles are written. While it had supported the Labour Party since 1997, it currently takes a very Pro-Conservative Party attitude in most of its articles. However, it will likely not formally announce this until the next general election in 2009 or 2010.

Many people (possibly including the paper's owners and staff members) believe that The Sun effectively chooses who will win any given election, in that it has a large readership covering a wide political spectrum, and former Prime Minister [[John Major]] for one has publicly acknowledged The Sun's role in his re-election in 1992. However, many instead believe that The Sun simply backs whichever party is most popular at any given time, so as to avoid a potentially disastrous alienation of their customers by continuing to back an unpopular party (as happened to the [[Daily Mirror]] through much of the 1980s).

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]

The Sun

2009-09-18T01:07:21Z

DanHutchin: As per main talk page

{{stub}}
'''The Sun''' is a British daily tabloid newspaper published by [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. The Sun originated as the [[Daily Herald]], a trade union owned paper, renamed and relaunched under new ownership as The Sun in 1964. It adopts a liberal political line, but its content is largely concerned with celebrity, sport and entertainment tittle-tattle and its continuing publication, despite protests, of 'Page 3 girls' - large photographs of bare-breasted young women on page 3. The Sun has the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the English-speaking world.

While it does not explicitly support any political party asides from when UK General Elections take place, The Sun usually makes it quite obvious which political party it is supporting at any one time, through the way its articles are written. While it had supported the Labour Party since 1997, it currently takes a very Pro-Conservative Party attitude in most of its articles. However, it will likely not formally announce this until the next general election in 2009 or 2010.

Many people (possibly including the paper's owners and staff members) believe that The Sun effectively chooses who will win any given election, in that it has a large readership covering a wide political spectrum, and former Prime Minister [[John Major]] for one has publicly acknowledged The Sun's role in his re-election in 1992. However, many instead believe that The Sun simply backs whichever party is most popular at any given time, so as to avoid a potentially disastrous alienation of their customers by continuing to back an unpopular party (as happened to the [[Daily Mirror]] through much of the 1980s).

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]

Nicolas Cage

2009-08-28T16:18:19Z

DanHutchin: Common sp. mistake, Nicolas doesn't spell his name with an 'h'

'''Nicolas Cage''' (born Nicolas Frances Washington Abigail Coppola Jnr.) is an [[Academy Award]] winning actor, whose films include The Family Man and the Oscar nominated Bangkok Dangerous. He is also a fully ordained rabbi and since mid-July 2007, has been performing traditional [[Jewish]] weddings in Las Vegas. He is popular worldwide and is a cult-icon in India.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Cage, Nicolas}}
[[Category:Actors]]

Talk:Nicolas Cage

2009-08-28T16:18:15Z

DanHutchin: Title change needed

Hi, a common spelling mistake has been made throughout this page. In this case Nicolas isn't spelt with an 'h'. I've changed the body of the text, but could somebody change the title? Thanks.

Saruman

2009-07-26T20:49:30Z

DanHutchin: Reinsertion of now properly referenced material

'''Saruman''' is a character in [[J. R. R. Tolkien]]'s [[Middle-earth]] world, appearing mainly in ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. He is one of the [[Istari]], a group commonly called "[[wizard (fiction)|Wizards]]" by the people of Middle-earth. Saruman became corrupted and is one of the story's villains. Tolkien meant Saruman, amongst others, to represent the modern society that Britain was growing into at the time (especially its evils and the corruption and industrialization of the green countryside of the then starting to die agriculturial business that made up the main employers of the Home Counties, which in J.R.R. Tolkien's eyes was a great evil).<ref>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=saruman+industrialization&source=bl&ots=hgFHbG5a-d&sig=FYMqPSNc9BB4j5Lf-Eu6Vx0Jbc8&hl=en&ei=orxsSuL0LZrMjAeG6e2QCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1</ref><ref>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mZny5uwvSd8C&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=saruman+farming+industry&source=bl&ots=FUXhe1hxzk&sig=rnEPMmt0AR9dpd28zkXizV34cj0&hl=en&ei=VrxsStelEOWMjAfZq-2aCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8</ref><ref>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA388&lpg=PA388&dq=saruman+industrialization+farming&source=bl&ots=hgFHbFd9Wc&sig=s7-qOI74tK5bMDRRbPqQg2pCEfQ&hl=en&ei=O7RsSoK6FODKjAeRkK2SCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1</ref>

When he betrayed his trust, [[Gandalf]] cast him out, yet spared his life. Saruman was so deranged as to take Gandalf's mercy as cruelty. His henchman was Gríma, nicknamed Wormtongue in Rohan, who was sent to spy on and enthrall [[Théoden]].

== Adaptions ==
In [[Peter Jackson]]'s [[The Lord of the Rings film trilogy|film adaptations]] of ''The Lord of the Rings'', Saruman is played by English actor [[Christopher Lee]].

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Middle-earth]]

Talk:Saruman

2009-07-26T20:38:57Z

DanHutchin: Tolkien's dismay at the industrialisation of England

== He represented the modern society and its evils, the corruption of the green countryside, and the industrialization of society, in J.R.R. Tolkien's eyes a great evil. ==

Mr Wilson is correct in making this statement. It is well known amongst Tolkien scholars that J R R Tolkien had a particular loathing for the industrialisation of England, especially in farming and how it affected the Home Counties, the area of England that Tolkien based the Shire on. Pending somebody objecting, I'll reintroduce Mr Wilson's statement, complete with cites.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 16:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Sunday roast

2009-07-17T13:49:39Z

DanHutchin: corrected error: pork --> beef

[[Image:Sunday roast.jpg|thumb|right|250px]]
A '''Sunday Roast''', also known as a 'roast dinner' or 'roast with all the trimmings', is a popular dish in the United Kingdom; indeed, where the meat to be roasted is beef, it is considered the [[national dish]] of [[England]].

A Sunday roast consists of a joint of roasted meat - [[beef]], lamb, [[pork]]; or a roast [[chicken]] or [[turkey]] - served with 'the trimmings': roast or boiled [[potato]]es, peas, carrots, green vegetables (cabbage is a popular choice, or sprouts in winter) and [[gravy]]. Specific accompaniments are served according to the type of meat chosen: [[horseradish sauce]] and [[Yorkshire Pudding]] with beef; mint sauce with lamb; apple sauce and stuffing with pork (which should also be accompanied by ''crackling'' - crispy baked [[pork rind]]); stuffing and cranberry sauce with chicken and turkey.

Sunday roasts are a welcome opportunity for families to get together, and are also popular at other celebratory occasions (not necessarily on a Sunday). Medieval themed restaurants often put on a spit roast - a joint of meat cooked by slow rotation on a spit over an open fire.

[[Category:Meat]]
[[Category:English Food]]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2009-07-05T16:20:25Z

DanHutchin: /* Reversion Explained */

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There's two problems with this.
::* First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one ''or more'' of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
::** A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
::** A student praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
:: * Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].

::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain ''what'' something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one ''really'' illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
::::: Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Saying something is "controversial" is a [[liberal]] way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

:::: The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize ''your'' side? You might want to reword that.

:::::Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no [[liberals]] have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

:::::::::::: You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the [[theory of evolution]] is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:If saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism" [[User:ClydeMorris|ClydeMorris]]

== Reversion Explained ==

I don't think Britain mandates ''classroom'' prayer. I have an open mind about this but would be very surprised if there is any evidence to support the insertion. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:55, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'classroom' prayer, but all schools in England & Wales have a legal obligation to provide "a daily act of collective worship" that is ""wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" [http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3646389.stm] [http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/]

:"Classroom prayer" means, obviously, "prayer in the classroom." No, Britain does not have that or require it. The links you provide, even if adhered to, would be a general prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing. It doesn't mean classroom prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::Well then, given your definition of Classroom prayer, then classroom prayer is mandatory in England & Wales, as the law requires that the service take place within the school which, given the numbers involved (the average secondary school in England & Wales has between 1000 and 2000 pupils), almost always means that the service takes place in the theatre (a classroom for Drama). The service consists of:

*a lesson drawn from the bible
*the singing of one or more hymns
*communal prayer

with such services lasting 20 mins or so. The service will be given by either the head of the school or the head of the respective years attending the service, depending on how many simultaneous services the school holds. I know this because like nearly every other person in England and Wales, when I attended school I had to attend these services twice a week, as required by law. The one thing these services aren't are 'prayer-around-the-flagpole' sorts of things, as there aren't that many schools in England & Wales that have accessible flagpoles, and nobody would want to stand around one for 20mins in inclement weather whilst the service is being carried out.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 10:14, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:Dan, you're far too literal. By "prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing" I obviously mean prayer that is separate and removed from classroom instruction. Your further posting confirms that fact. There is no praying at the beginning of a class, as [[Isaac Newton]] would do to inspire his scientific discoveries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::No, you're right that there isn't prayer at the beginning of every lesson, it would be massively disruptive to the lessons and schooling if there were prayers 8-10 times a day (consider, before prayers could start those not involved because they had a different faith would have to be removed from the classroom, the prayer would have to be held, then those outside the classroom would have to take their places again. As a standard lesson in secondary school is 30 mins long you would lose at least 5 mins of that lesson time on each and every lesson). Instead there is prayer, sermon and hymns at the beginning of every schoolday, a far more sensible solution.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 12:20, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Classroom prayer

2009-07-05T14:14:24Z

DanHutchin: /* Reversion Explained */

User:DanHutchin

2009-07-05T14:04:35Z

DanHutchin: Created page with 'This username has been chosen because my previous username received a block that stated: "Your user name or IP address has been blocked. The block was made by Jallen. The reaso...'

This username has been chosen because my previous username received a block that stated:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Jallen. The reason given is Similar to existing editor name, please choose another.

* Start of block: 00:38, 5 July 2009
* Expiry of block: infinite
* Intended blockee: DanH2

You can contact Jallen or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'e-mail this user' feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 86.10.19.159, and the block ID is #55512.
Please include all above details in any queries you make.

You can view and copy the source of this page:"

Would have loved to been able to communicate with admin to change my username, but Jallen also blocked my ability to use the e-mail this user function as well, so I have had to change my account name this way.