Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2007-03-24T13:33:41Z

Donalbain:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] and Larry Sangers on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a pornographic search engine funded by Jimbo Wales. Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Seigenthaler Hoax==
In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler Sr, a journalist and an assistant to former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that states:<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.
</blockquote>
In September 2005, a friend of Seigenthaler's discovered the Wikipedia entry and alerted Seigenthaler, whom then contacted the Wikimedia foundation to have the article corrected, however the false biography had remained on Wikipedia for many months.
Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt later discovered the prepetrator of the prank was Brian Chase, an acquaintance of Seigenthaler Sr. John Seigenthaler Sr later published an article in ''USA Today'' on the whole affair.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>

The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy" and finally downgraded in its stable version to "incident". Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia." <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrived 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting the slander factory <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref> from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-03-13T14:01:51Z

Donalbain:

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-03-13T14:00:55Z

Donalbain:

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, of course, if you think that US Patent 5,822,206, 1998 - patentstorm.us
... 65-67. Lee, MH "Towards intelligent design and diagnosis tolls for electrical and
mechanical engineering", Computing & Control Engineering Journal, Jul. ...
Cited by 81 - Cached - Web Search
has anyhing to do with the pretendy biological science of ID, then you dont know much about biology. And scholar.google.com doesnt restrict its search to peer reviewed articles anyway.

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-09T13:35:01Z

Donalbain:

'''It shouldn't.''' Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

'''It should.''' Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia?

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Tidal lock

2007-02-28T09:43:53Z

Donalbain: Created page

Tidal locking is the process by which two bodies in an orbital relationship will, over time, come to show the same face to one another. In other words, the period of rotation about the axis of the body will come to match the body's orbital period.

'''Mechanism'''

Considering two bodies, one larger (A) than the other (B):
Body A will exert a gravitational force on B, causing B to be bulged towards body A.

As body B continues to rotate, a different part of the surface will be pulled towards A. In effect, the bulge will "move". However, the material of body B will resist being warped in this way, resulting in a torque that will affect the rotation of B.

This torque acts in such a way that eventually, the rotation of B is such that the same face always points towards A.

This process will also alter the rotation of body A, but if A is much larger, then the process will take a greater amount of time.

'''Example'''

One example of tidal locking is the [[Earth]]/[[Moon]] system. The moon has become tidally locked, and so continually shows the same face to inhabitants of planet Earth.

'''See also'''

Steppes

2007-02-27T10:59:41Z

Donalbain:

Plain with no trees; like a prairie, but shorter grass; also similar to a desert, though not as dry. Also like the sea, only not as wet.

Francis Bacon

2007-02-22T18:53:29Z

Donalbain:

[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumb|200px]]
A scientist during the [[Age of Exploration]] who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a [[confirmed bachelor]] throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.

Francis Bacon

2007-02-22T17:39:25Z

Donalbain:

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:33:10Z

Donalbain:

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He was a significant figure in the development of the theory of evolution. After touring the [[Galapagos Islands]] and studying the animals that lived there, he came up with his theory of [[natural selection]] and published [[''The Origin of Species'']] in [[1859]].

While often regarded by evolutionists as "the father of modern biology," Darwin himself was aware that some aspects of his work were not as scientific as he wished. In a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, he wrote "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=104]

Some people claim that he recanted on his death bed. However, this story was put about by a certain Lady Hope, who according to Darwin's family, never attended his deatbed at all. It is a story completely without support and consists of little more than [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|gossip]]

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:30:55Z

Donalbain:

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:12:17Z

Donalbain:

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:02:09Z

Donalbain: More deletions

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:01:37Z

Donalbain:

Atheism

2007-02-22T16:55:20Z

Donalbain:

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any supernatural deity. This disbelief can take a number of forms, such as the assertion that deities do not exist, or the absence of any belief in any deity.

[[Stalin]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] are prominent atheists. Dawkins wrote a book, called "The God Delusion". Stalin is now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of Marxis-Leninism.

Francis Bacon

2007-02-22T16:52:29Z

Donalbain:

[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumb|200px]]
A scientist during the [[Age of Exploration]] who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation.

Homosexuality

2007-02-22T16:51:54Z

Donalbain:

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a person of the same gender.

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T16:49:38Z

Donalbain:

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T16:49:06Z

Donalbain:

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T16:48:09Z

Donalbain:

User talk:Donalbain

2007-02-22T16:47:16Z

Donalbain:

Presidents of the United States

2007-02-22T15:33:11Z

Donalbain:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
== '''Presidents of the United States''' ==
|-
! Presidents !! Vice Presidents
|-
| [[Image:george_washington_3.jpg|70px]][[George Washington]] (1789-1797) ||[[Image:John_adams.gif|70px]][[John Adams]] (1789-1797)
|-
| [[Image:John_adams.gif|70px]][[John Adams]] (1797-1801) || [[Image:Thomas_jefferson.jpg|70px]][[Thomas Jefferson]] (1797-1801)
|-
| [[Image:Thomas_jefferson.jpg|70px]][[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-1809) || [[Image:Aaron_burr.jpg|70px]][[Aaron Burr]] (1801-1805)
|-
| || [[Image:George_clinton.jpg|70px]][[George Clinton]] (1805-1809)
|-
| [[Image:James_madison.jpg|70px]][[James Madison]] (1809-1817)|| [[Image:George_clinton.jpg|70px]][[George Clinton]] (1809-1812)
|-
| || none (1812-1813)
|-
| || [[Image:Elbridge_gerry.jpg|70px]][[Elbridge Gerry]] (1813-1814)
|-
| || none (1814-1817)
|-
| [[Image:James_monroe.jpg|80px]][[James Monroe]] (1817-1825) || [[Image:Daniel_tompkins.jpg|80px]][[Daniel D. Tompkins]] (1817-1825)
|-
| [[Image:John_quincy_adams.jpg|70px]][[John Quincy Adams]] (1825-1829) || [[Image:John_calhoun.jpg|70px]][[John C. Calhoun]] (1825-1829)
|-
| [[Image:Andrew_jackson.jpeg|70px]][[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837) || [[Image:John_calhoun.jpg|70px]][[John C. Calhoun]] (1829-1832)
|-
| || none (1832-1833)
|-
| || [[Image:Martin_van_buren.jpg|70px]][[Martin Van Buren]] (1833-1837)
|-
| [[Image:Martin_van_buren.jpg|70px]][[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841) || [[Image:Richard_johnson.jpg|90px]][[Richard M. Johnson]] (1837-1841)
|-
| [[Image:William_harrison.jpg|70px]][[William Henry Harrison]] (1841) || [[Image:John_tyler.jpg|70px]][[John Tyler]] (1841)
|-
| [[Image:John_tyler.jpg|70px]][[John Tyler]] (1841-1845) || none (1841-1845)
|-
| [[Image:James_polk.jpg|70px]][[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849) || [[Image:George_dallas.jpg|70px]][[George M. Dallas]] (1845-1849)
|-
| [[Image:Zachary_taylor.jpg|70px]][[Zachary Taylor]] (1849-1850) || [[Image:Millard_fillmore.jpg|70px]][[Millard Fillmore]] (1849-1850)
|-
| [[Image:Millard_fillmore.jpg|70px]][[Millard Fillmore]] (1850-1853) || none (1850-1853)
|-
| [[Image:Franklin_pierce.jpg|70px]][[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857) || [[Image:William_king.jpg|70px]][[William King]] (1853)
|-
| || none (1853-1857)
|-
| [[Image:James_buchanan.jpg|70px]][[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861) || [[Image:Breckinridge.jpg|95px]][[John C. Breckinridge]] (1857-1861)
|-
| [[Image:Abraham_lincoln.jpg|70px]][[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865) || [[Image:Hannibal_hamlin.jpg|70px]][[Hannibal Hamlin]] (1861-1865)
|-
| || [[Image:Andrew_johnson.jpg|70px]][[Andrew Johnson]] (1865)
|-
| [[Image:Andrew_johnson.jpg|70px]][[Andrew Johnson]] (1865-1869) || none (1865-1869)
|-
| [[Image:Ulysses_grant.jpg|75px]][[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877) || [[Image:Schuyler_colfax.jpg|70px]][[Schuyler Colfax]] (1869-1873)
|-
| || [[Image:Henry_wilson.jpg|75px]][[Henry Wilson]] (1873-1875)
|-
| || none (1875-1877)
|-
| [[Image:Rutherford_hayes.jpg|75px]][[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881) || [[Image:William_wheeler.jpg|70px]][[William Wheeler]] (1877-1881)
|-
| [[Image:James_garfield.jpg|70px]][[James A. Garfield]] (1881) || [[Image:Chester_arthur.jpg|75px]][[Chester Arthur]] (1881)
|-
| [[Image:Chester_arthur.jpg|75px]][[Chester Arthur]] (1881-1885) || none (1881-1885)
|-
| [[Image:Grover_cleveland.jpg|70px]][[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) || [[Image:Thomas_hendricks.jpg|70px]][[Thomas Hendricks]] (1885)
|-
| ||none (1885-1889)
|-
| [[Image:Benjamin_harrison.jpg|70px]][[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893) || [[Image:Levi_morton.jpg|70px]][[Levi P. Morton]] (1889-1893)
|-
| [[Image:Grover_cleveland.jpg|70px]][[Grover Cleveland]] (1893-1897) || [[Image:Adlai_stevenson.jpg|70px]][[Adlai E. Stevenson]] (1893-1897)
|-
|[[Image:William_mckinley.jpg|70px]][[William McKinley]] (1897-1901) || [[Image:Garret_hobart.jpg|85px]][[Garret Hobart]] (1897-1901)
|-
| || [[Image:Theodore_roosevelt.jpg|70px]][[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901)
|-
| [[Image:Theodore_roosevelt.jpg|70px]][[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909) || none (1901-1905)
|-
| || [[Image:Charles_fairbanks.jpg|70px]][[Charles Fairbanks]] (1905-1909)
|-
| [[Image:William_taft.jpg|70px]][[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913) || [[Image:James_sherman.jpg|70px]][[James S. Sherman]] (1909-1912)
|-
| || none (1912-1913)
|-
| [[Image:Woodrow_wilson.jpg|70px]][[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921) || [[Image:Thomas_marshall.gif|70px]][[Thomas R. Marshall]] (1913-1921)
|-
| [[Image:Warren_harding.jpg|70px]][[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923) || [[Image:Calvin_coolidge.jpg|80px]][[Calvin Coolidge]] (1921-1923)
|-
| [[Image:Calvin_coolidge.jpg|80px]][[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929) ||none (1923-1925)
|-
| || [[Image:Charles_dawes.jpg |70px]][[Charles Dawes]] (1925-1929)
|-
| [[Image:Herbert_hoover.jpg|70px]][[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933) || [[Image:Charles_curtis.jpg |70px]][[Charles Curtis]] (1929-1933)
|-
| [[Image:Franklin_roosevelt.jpg |70px]][[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933-1945) ||[[Image:John_garner.jpg |70px]][[John Nance Garner]] (1933-1941)
|-
| || [[Image:Henry_wallace.jpg |70px]][[Henry A. Wallace]] (1941-1945)
|-
| || [[Image:Harry_truman.jpg |70px]][[Harry S. Truman]] (1945)
|-
| [[Image:Franklin_roosevelt.jpg |70px]][[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953) || none (1945-1949)
|-
| || [[Image:Alben_barkley.jpg |70px]][[Alben Barkley]] (1949-1953)
|-
| [[Image:Dwight_eisenhower.jpg |80px]][[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961) || [[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|80px]][[Richard Nixon]] (1953-1961)
|-
| [[Image:John_kennedy.jpg |70px]][[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963) || [[Image:Lyndon_johnson.jpg |70px]][[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1961-1963)
|-
| [[Image:Lyndon_johnson.jpg |70px]][[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969) || none (1963-1965)
|-
| || [[Image:Hubert_humphrey.jpg |70px]][[Hubert Humphrey]] (1965-1969)
|-
| [[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|80px]][[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974) || [[Image:Spiro_agnew.jpg |70px]][[Spiro Agnew]] (1969-1973)
|-
| || none (1973)
|-
| || [[Image:Gerald_ford.jpg |80px]][[Gerald Ford]] (1973-1974)
|-
| [[Image:Gerald_ford.jpg |80px]][[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977) || none (1974)
|-
| [[Image:Jimmy_carter.jpg |80px]][[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981) || [[Image:Walter_mondale.jpg |70px]][[Walter Mondale]] (1977-1981)
|-
| [[Image:Ronald_reagan.jpg |80px]][[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989) || [[Image:George_h_bush.jpg |70px]][[George H.W. Bush]] (1981-1989)
|-
| [[Image:George_h_bush.jpg |70px]][[George H.W. Bush]] (1989-1993) || [[Image:Dan_quayle.jpg |70px]][[Dan Quayle]] (1989-1993)
|-
| [[Image:Bill_clinton.jpg |60px]][[William Jefferson Clinton]] (1993-2001) || [[Image:Al_gore.jpeg |60px]][[Al Gore]] (1993-2001)
|-
| [[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg |70px]][[George W. Bush]] (2001-) || [[Image:Dick_cheney.jpg |70px]][[Dick Cheney]] (2001-)
|-
|}

George W. Bush

2007-02-22T14:46:09Z

Donalbain:

Is the president of the United States of America. Was elected [[United States presidential election, 2000|controversially]] in 2000, and re-elected in 2004.

Some of his successes are:
*Invading Iraq before Saddam Hussein could use his weapons of mass destruction on more innocents, like he did against the Kurds.
*Preventing terrorist attacks on US soil since September 2001.
*Cutting taxes.
*Causing more American deaths than 9/11.
*Being re-elected when running against John Kerry.

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-02-22T14:30:38Z

Donalbain: Edits

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

George W. Bush

2007-02-22T14:29:47Z

Donalbain:

Is the president of the United States of America. Was elected [[United States presidential election, 2000|controversially]] in 2000, and re-elected in 2004.

Some of his successes are:
*Invading Iraq before Saddam Hussein could use his weapons of mass destruction on more innocents, like he did against the Kurds.
*Preventing terrorist attacks on US soil since September 2001.
*Cutting taxes.
*Balancing the budget by 2012.
*Causing more American deaths than 9/11.
*Being re-elected when running against John Kerry.

Marie Curie

2007-02-22T14:17:42Z

Donalbain:

Marie Curie was a Polish scientist who did extensive work on radioactivity and radioactive materials along with her husband, Pierre.

She discovered two elements, previously unknown, both radioactive. One of them she named ''polonium'' in honor of her native Poland, the other ''radium.''

The ''Curie,'' a unit of radioactivity, is named in her honor.

Talk:Theory of relativity

2007-02-22T14:12:33Z

Donalbain: Great article

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

Theory of relativity

2007-02-22T13:51:44Z

Donalbain:

[[Image:spacetime_curvature.png|thumb|right|300px|Two-dimensional analogy of space-time distortion described in General Relativity.]]

The '''theory of relativity''', or simply '''relativity''', refers specifically to two theories: [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[special relativity]] and [[general relativity]].

The term "relativity" was coined by [[Max Planck]] in [[1908]] to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the [[principle of relativity]].

== Special relativity ==
{{main|Special relativity}}

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of [[spacetime]]. The reason we have three space dimensions and one time dimension, or better, space-time, could lie in the way gravity works. One of the foundations of Poincaré’s Theory is the fact that gravity can affect time. It was introduced in [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[1905]] paper "[[Annus Mirabilis Papers#Papers|On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies]]". Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in [[classical mechanics]]:
# That observers, when in [[inertial reference frame|uniform motion relative to one another]], have no way of determining whether one of them is "stationary" ([[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]]'s [[principle of relativity]]),
# That the [[speed of light]] in a [[vacuum]] is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion or of the motion of the source of the [[light]].

The resultant theory has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:
* [[Time dilation]]: Moving [[clock]]s tick slower than an observer's "stationary" clock.
* [[Length contraction]]: Objects are shorter along the direction in which they are moving.
* [[Relativity of simultaneity]]: two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect to A.
* [[E=mc²]]: energy and mass are equivalent and interchangeable.

The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the [[Galilean transformation]]s of classical mechanics by the [[Lorentz transformation]]s. (See [[Maxwell's equations]] of [[electromagnetism]] and [[introduction to special relativity]]).

== General relativity ==
{{main|General relativity}}
General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the years [[1907]] - [[1915]].

The development of general relativity began with the [[equivalence principle]], under which the states of [[acceleration|accelerated motion]] and being at rest in a [[gravity|gravitational field]] are physically identical. The upshot of this is that [[free fall]] is [[inertia|inertial motion]]. This is incompatible with [[classical mechanics]] and [[special relativity]] because in those theories intertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed the spacetime is [[curvature|curved]], and in [[1915]] devised the [[Einstein field equations]] which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.

Technically, general relativity is a [[metric (mathematics)|metric]] theory of [[gravitation]] whose defining feature is its use of the Einstein field equations. The solutions of the field equations are [[metric tensor (general relativity)|metric tensor]]s which define the topology of the spacetime and how objects move intertially.

Some of the consequences of general relativity are:
* Time goes slower at lower gravitational potentials. This is called [[gravitational time dilation]].
* Orbits [[precession|precess]] in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] and in [[binary pulsar]]s).
* Even rays of [[light]] (which are weightless) [[General relativity#Bending of light|bend in the presence of a gravitational field]].
* [[Expansion of the universe|The Universe is expanding]], and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the [[speed of light]].
* [[Frame-dragging|A rotating mass "drags along" the space time continuum]] around it.