Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Impeachment and removal

2007-06-22T00:46:56Z

Edward: New page: The section on Clinton has been rather obviously copied and pasted unthinkingly from somewhere else: 'Hillary Clinton, pollster's choice to run in 2004' - th=at statement must be at least ...

The section on Clinton has been rather obviously copied and pasted unthinkingly from somewhere else: 'Hillary Clinton, pollster's choice to run in 2004' - th=at statement must be at least four years old.

Talk:National Health Service

2007-06-22T00:01:35Z

Edward:

This should be a disambiguation page, because NHS can also refer to National Honor Society. It doesn't make sense that a British health service should take precedence over that on Conservapedia. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Add a disambiguation page then!(The beauty of the wiki software ey ;-))[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It doesn't make sense that one of the largest employers in the world and perhaps the most significant example of a socialised health system (entirely relevant to conservatives one would think) should take precedence over the "National Honor Society", whatever that is? Priceless. [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::: "One of the largest employers in the world"? Now there's a claim to fame. The NHS is behind the ... Chinese Army. I guess we need a special entry about that communist entity now too, due to its having so many employees??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, it might not be a bad idea actually. Just because it's communist (or at least a curious hybrid of unbridled capitalism, corruption and state control) doesn't mean that we should ignore it.

Gun control

2007-06-21T03:20:32Z

Edward:

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s.

Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]].

Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. [[Libertarian]]s and [[conservative]]s, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, <ref>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html</ref> and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[courts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the reduction of gun crime.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on the right to bear arms right. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. It should be noted however, that correlation should not necessarily imply causation. DC's high crime rate could be attributable to other factors, such as high poverty rates. Moreover, if gun control laws are designed to combat crime, it would be expected that they would be found in areas with higher crime rates.

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the USA is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Gun control outside the USA ==
In [[Singapore]], which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", i.e. owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm).

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Scientific method

2007-06-21T03:07:13Z

Edward:

An example of an excellent, useful article. Will it be deleted for failing one of ASchlafly's tests? I ask not to be a pain, but because accepting this entry should cause the rejection of a large percentage of articles currently here.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:It won't be deleted, if I have any say in the matter. But item #3 is incomplete and has a poor example.

==Poverty of this definition==

Totally diagaree. This is a very inadequate section, which does not at all address what the scientific method actually does , or tries to do, not the depth of verifiability required in accepting theory. Compare what is written here with the Wikipedia entry:

''Elements of scientific method''
There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the [[scientific community]] and among [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]], each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
* '''Observation'''. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

* '''Description'''. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

* '''Prediction'''. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

* '''Control'''. Actively and fairly sampling the range of ''possible'' occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

* '''Falsifiability''', or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: ''All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof''. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.{{Who|Date=March 2007}} Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

:* '''Identification of causes'''. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
:* '''Covariation of events'''. The hypothesized causes must [[correlate]] with observed effects.
:* '''Time-order relationship'''. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
</div>

The following is a more thorough description of the method. This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as social sciences. Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[iteration]]s, [[recursion]]s, [[interleaving]]s, and [[Partially ordered set|orderings]] of the following:
*[[#Characterizations|Characterizations]] (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
*[[#Hypothesis development|Hypotheses]] (theoretical, hypothetical [[explanation]]s of observations and measurements)
*[[#Predictions from the hypothesis|Predictions]] ([[reasoning]] including [[logic]]al [[deduction]] from [[hypothesis]] and [[theory]])
*[[#Experiments|Experiments]] ([[Experiment|test]]s of all of the above) </div>

An alternative way to explain scientific method is the "operational":
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[operation]]s, [[observation]]s, [[scientific modeling|model]]s, and a [[utility function]] for evaluating models.
*[[Operation]] - Some action done to the system being investigated
*[[Observation]] - What happens when the operation is done to the system
*[[Scientific_modeling|Model]] - A [[fact]], [[hypothesis]], [[theory]], or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
*[[Utility_function|Utility Function]] - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the [[Scientific_modeling|refutability]] of the model. Another is its [[simplicity]], on the [[Principle of Parsimony]] also known as [[Occam's Razor]].</div>

I would suggest that what is required her is either to use a reference to Wikipedia OR to incorparate some of these elements.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Uncle Ed's two cents ==

Has anyone seen this 4-step formulation?

*Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
*#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
*#The inducement of general [[hypotheses]] or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet [[logic]]al. [[Occam's Razor]] should be considered but need not be strictly applied: ''Entia non sunt multiplicanda'', or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
*#The [[deduction]] of [[corollary]] assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable [[prediction]]s are made based on the initial hypothesis.
*#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced [[implication]]s. [[Observation]] is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or [[falsifying]] the initial hypothesis.
*[[Pseudoscience]] often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]

The difference between this 4-step process and what the article says, is that this one recommends drawing [[conclusion]]s from the hypothesis. The [[scientist]] then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.

Logically, it works like this:

*Hypothesis: the [[moon]] is made of green cheese.
*#If this is true, then the [[spectrum]] of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
*#[[Astronomer]] X did a spectral analysis of [[moonlight]] and found that it did not match green cheese.
*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.

If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the [[criteria]] used by medical [[researcher]]s to determine whether a particular [[germ]] causes a [[disease]]. Such factors as:
*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least [[antibodies]] indicating its presence)?
*Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a [[threshold]]?

I think this was used in determining whether ''[[e. coli]]'' [[bacteria]] in [[water]] makes people sick.

Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

----
It has been nearly 3 weeks, and '''none''' of the writers clamoring and carping about the supposed "bias" of this site re: [[theory of evolution]] have bothered to comment on [[scientific methodology]] here. Does this mean that evolution is indeed a matter of [[dogma]] to them, as [[Ann Coulter]] claims in ''[[Godless]]''?

[[Psychology]] studies invisible events which cannot be measured by any "[[natural]]" means. We can only ask people to report to us, in their own words, what they were thinking or feeling. Yet it is considered a [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, it might be because we have been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements, and did not have the opportunity to contribute. :P --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::If this were true, somebody would have pointed out an example by now. I've been here 5 weeks, and ideological bans simply do not happen. Do not spread false rumors, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you mean like the following interchange on A.Schafly's talk page just before I was banned...

<nowiki>== Response to accusations of ideology ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>This is quite an interesting accusation. I thought that I was simply pointing out that the entry as written was deficient, in that it contained no references and seemed to present an unjustified diatribe against what the author perceived to be 'liberals'. Not knowing any liberals, myself, I would like to know where i can find such information, so as to read about them, and convince myself that the statements are true. As to defacing, I did not change ONE ITEM of text that you wrote, hence I do not consider that defacement. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)</nowiki>

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
----
You were not "banned" - you are still here. To "ban" means to exclude permanently from the project. Please don't use inflammatory language.

Your account was blocked for three days because of "sarcasm". You had said that you didn't know any liberals.

Instead of engaging me here in a low-traffic area of the site, perhaps you'd like to make your points in a more prominent place, such as [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] got blocked for criticising badly sourced stuff. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that the reasons given for such blocks are just excuses to stifle criticism - they can't be found in the rules.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Distinct from Scientific theory ==

Recently, this was made a redirect to [[scientific theory]] which is one stage of the scientific method. It does not talk about the method itself (observation, hypothesis, predictions, refinement, theory). If there are no objections, I intend to remove the redirect and rewrite the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Mtur - didn't mean to step on your toes - I saw the article had been redirected to scientific theory, which was obviously incorrect, so I wrote something for it to provide some kind of definition of the scientific method without looking at the discussion page. I expect other people will rewrite anything that looks incorrect. There should be no ideological struggles over this since an understanding of the scientific method is universally accepted by scientists, though it may be phrased differently by different people.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Seems the only contributors to the old entry were amongst a cabal of vandals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:No toes stepped on - just that they are two distinct concepts that need distinct pages. If the old page was substandard then a new one should be written. I'm just making sure that ''I'm'' not stepping on any sensitive sysop toes by suggesting this. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::Please go ahead. We do have some questionable material in some entries, so I just had to remove all this since the ony two contributors have been blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we need to look at Popper on scientific method. He's the set text for many university philosophy of science papers --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 23:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Music

2007-06-21T03:00:25Z

Edward: I felt that the use of music as an accompaniment to dancing throughout the ages had hitherto been neglected in this article

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref>
== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener: the 'tune' one hums along with.

''Counterpoint'' is a specific technique for creating secondary melodies that intertwine with and compliment the main melody. When two or more notes sound at the same time, it is called a ''chord,'' and the distance between the notes is the ''interval.'' In the western 12-note scale common usage, an interval is often expressed in relative terms, using the eight notes that make up an octave and prefixing 'major' or 'minor' to account for the interstitial notes. For instance, the interval between 'C' and 'E' is a ''3rd'' because 'E' is the 3rd note in the major scale of C. One-half step below that is a ''minor 3rd,'' although this exact same note could also be called a ''major 2nd''.

Many of the feelings and emotions that music can evoke are a result of the tension between the ''harmonic'' sound of some intervals, and the ''dissonant'' sound of others. During the development of western music, certain rules were established for proper melodic counterpoint, and these rules specified how intervals (chords) could change over time in the music. For example, in the chants of Gregorian Monks, chords containing certain intervals, like 7ths, were required to 'resolve' to their harmonious natural key, while other intervals, like minor 5ths, were deemed ugly and even considered evil, and banned from use in liturgic music. Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) represents the pinnacle of this style of strict rule-based composition, as many of his keyboard compositions and all of his sacred work adhere to the rules of counterpoint. From the height of the Baroque era (1700's) to the present, the history of western music has unfolded as each generation of composers has pushed the boundaries of these these rules right up to, and then in the 20th century, way beyond, all limits.

In modern popular music, the bass line is often seen as an example of counterpoint. Another, more accurate example would be dueling guitar leads.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first musician was [[Satan|Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or [[angels]]. According to Scripture, after Lucifer fell, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the construction of the [[Tower of Babel].

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to music theory influenced artists for centuries to come, and still have a strong influence today, especially on composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. Beginning with the fall of Rome, however, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]] and [[George Gershwin|Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra and [[Rhapsody in Blue]]. On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

=== Different uses of classical and popular music ===
Classical music has typically found these uses:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# For the entertainment of the nobility; or, in more recent times, by commission from a particular group of people (often an orchestra or a university).
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is typically used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].
# As a powerful aid of [[propaganda]], and the closely related use in [[advertisement]].
# Rarely, to rally troops. One popular artist who achieved great distinction by winning acceptance of his music by military bands was [[Glenn Miller]].

Both forms of music can be used as propaganda, as in some of the works of [[Dmitri Shostakovich]] (although this is debated; see the article on Shostakovich for a more complete discussion).

All types of music are often used as an accompaniment to dancing. This was as true in the past as it is today, all over the world, whether in the discos of American nightclubs or the salsa bars of Latin America. Today, people may dance to Maddonna )the female recording artist), while a generation ago people were dancing to the works of Duke Ellington and Sammy Nestico. Before that, the waltzes of Strauss were popular, while in the Baroque era (1650-1750), the dance suite was a popular compositional form. Dancing to music, whether melodic or rhythmic in nature, often plays a ritualistic role in societies across the world.

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and humans are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

Music has also had a profound and well-documented effect in human history. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The pop selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music also has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August [[2006]]</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view<ref name=Brown/>, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions, and always will. (And perhaps they must.) Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. They maintain that music exists only for people to enjoy, not to make a political point. For some, indeed, music is an escape. To them, one who tries to infer a serious purpose in a given piece of music ought to abandon the attempt and simply enjoy it for what it is. This attitude recalls [[Mark Twain]]'s famous introduction to [[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]:<blockquote>PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.<br><br>BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR,<br>Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.</blockquote>

The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to militate against that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref>

Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. Perhaps too many of the listeners are worshiping the performers as if they were [[pagan]] [[idol]]s--a problem that, some say, composers like [[Franz Liszt]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] had to contend with. Perhaps the causes have as much to do with the subculture of which rock-and-roll music is a part, as with the music itself. Then, too, no [[physician]] has ever investigated the chronic, or long-standing, effects of a steady aural diet of different genres of music--beyond expressing concern that many listeners are listening to their music too loud and damaging their hearing with the sheer physical stress of the loud sounds. The only signs that anyone can study, if thry are signs of anything at all, are the statistics concerning psychological stress affecting, and substance abuse by, performers of various types of music. (Riots do not routinely break out at classical performances--at least, not since the ''Rite of Spring'' riot mentioned above. This might simply be due to wild behavior not being normative on the part of those who routinely patronize such music.)

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Music| ]]

Fixed costs

2007-06-20T22:54:38Z

Edward:

Fixed costs are costs that do not vary based on the amount of production or output. In other words, these costs exist regardless of whether a company is in full production or shut down. Fixed costs include rent, property taxes and debt. Costs, that depend on the amount of output, are [[variable costs]]. In the long run, variable costs are zero, as a firm can always choose to shut down.

[[category:economics]]

Canadian slave trade

2007-06-20T22:41:16Z

Edward: Removed 'And it is a MAJOR problem' as it seemed to take a gloating tone toward Canada, a tone that would not be appreciated if it were directed toward the USA

[[Image:Canadaslavery.jpg|thumb|150px|right|A human trafficking awareness poster from the Canadian Department of Justice.]]
The '''Canadian slave trade''' is a very controversial topic in [[Canada]]. The country is particular known for being one of the few industrialized nations in the western world that has a problem with modern-day sexual [[slavery]].

In a 2006 report the Future Group, a Canadian humanitarian organization dedicated to ending human trafficking, ranked eight industrialized nations and gave Canada an F for its "abysmal" record treating victims. The report, titled "Falling Short of the Mark: An International Study on the Treatment of Human Trafficking Victims", concluded that Canada "is an international embarrassment" when it comes to combating this form of slavery.

The report's principal author Benjamin Perrin wrote, "Canada has ignored calls for reform and continues to re-traumatize trafficking victims, with few exceptions, by subjecting them to routine deportation and fails to provide even basic support services."

In the report, the only other country to flunk was the [[United Kingdom]], which received a D, while the [[United States]] received a B+ and [[Australia]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Germany]] and [[Italy]] all received grades of B or B-. The report criticizes former [[Liberal Party of Canada]] cabinet ministers Irwin Cotler, Joe Volpe and Pierre Pettigrew for "passing the buck" on the issue.

Commenting on the report, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg told Sun Media Corporation, "It's very damning, and if there are obvious legislative or regulatory fixes that need to be done, those have to become priorities, given especially that we're talking about very vulnerable people."

==External links==
*[http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030209.html Canada an "International Embarrassment" on Sex Trafficking]

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

2007-06-20T22:28:37Z

Edward:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Lincoln3.jpg|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|}

The '''Lincoln Assassination''' took place on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, just as the [[American Civil War]] was coming to a close. President [[Abraham Lincoln]] was at a play in [[Ford's Theatre|Ford's Theater]], Washington D.C., when he was shot by actor John Wilkes Booth.

==Prelude==
Abraham Lincoln was the subject of death threats almost from the day he was elected president in November of 1860. This made his trip to Washington and his innauguration all the more harrowing, at least to his bodyguards; at one point he switched trains in Baltimore and arrived at the Capitol in disguise. In the summer of 1862 an unknown assailant managed to fire a bullet at him, putting a hole in his stovepipe hat as he was riding in a carriage for the Old Soldiers Home just north of Washington (TL 26, pg. 10).

As the Civil War was drawing to a close, there were many in the South who sought the means to end the war on their terms. Advertisements ran in Southern papers calling for the killing of the president, with the payment of large rewards to the men who made it happen. One such add was placed in an Alabama newspaper by George Washington Gayle, who promised his fellow Southerners that if funds were raised to a total of one million dollars, he would personaly see to it that Lincoln's end was violent (TL 26, pg. 11). Both Lincoln's personal bodyguard, the barrel-chested Ward Hill Lamon, and the Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, were fearful for the president, having heard rumors and more against Lincoln's life. Ocassionaly he would laugh off such rumors, and sometimes he would quietly acquiece to heeding their advice. But during the years of war, he was often heading out to the War Department, usually walking alone (TL 26, pg. 11).

On the evening of April 11, 1865, Lincoln was entertaining Lamon and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, who pressed him about the strange dreams he had been having. Lamon related what he said later:
:''"About ten days ago, I retired very late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front. I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible. I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. I saw light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as if their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise. Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. 'Who is dead in the White House?' I demanded of one of the soldiers, 'The President,' was his answer; 'he was killed by an assassin.' Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which woke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since."''

===The Booths===
The king of the American stage during the middle part of the 19th Century was Junius Brutus Booth, a British-born actor who mesmerized the crowd with his thrilling and powerful renditions of Shakespeare, as well as leading a scandalizing personal life. He abandoned his wife in favor of a flower girl, Mary Ann Holmes, from one of the English theaters, came to the United States in 1821, and resumed his acting career to great success, settling in the area of Baltimore, Maryland. Although he was totaly devoted to Mary Ann, he would not marry her until 1851; by then they had produced ten children.

The four sons of Booth would try their hands on the stage. Junius Brutus Jr. would enjoy good success on the stage before becoming a theater manager. Joseph's success there was limited, and he would turn to the medical profession. Edwin Booth would surpass even his father in brilliance as an actor, giving performances in such plays as ''Macbeth'' and ''King Lear'' to such a high degree that critics would label him the finest American actor of the 19th Century.

But it was John Wilkes Booth who would place a stamp of theatrical glory on himself, no matter the cost. He was dashing on the stage, dazzling the audience with his impulsiveness and firey acting. He traveled with a wardrobe valued at $15,000, and made sure his travels to the cities he performed in were also accompanied by a visit to the local photographer, where ''cartes de visite'' were made, so that he could hand them out to his many female admirers (TL 26, pp. 34, 60).

==The conspiracy==
==Ford's Theater==
===Secretary Seward===
===Last hours===
==The manhunt==
==The funeral==
==The trial==
==Judgement==
==Aftermath==
==Popular Culture==
The question 'Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?' is often used semi-humorously when asking about an event that was marred by some accident or mishap.

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983
*Time-Life Books, ''The Civl War'', vol. 26 (''The Assassination''), Time, Inc. New York (1987).
*Sandburg, Carl. ''Abraham Lincoln'', Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York (1954)
*Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln'', Simon and Schuster, New York (2005)
*Hanchett, William. ''The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies'', University of Illinois (1983)
*Donald, David Herbert. ''Lincoln'', Jonathan Cafe (Random House), London (1995)
[[Category:Abraham Lincoln]]

Factors of production

2007-06-20T22:16:32Z

Edward:

Factors of production are inputs used to produce [[goods]]. Basic models of production have two input factors, [[labor]] and [[capital]]. In other contexts, additional factors such as land or entrepreneurship are considered.

In perfectly competitive markets, the factor price is equal to the marginal product of that factor, i.e. the amount of revenue gained by a small increase in quantity of factor used. So the price of labour, the real wage, is equal to the marginal product of labour, or the amount of output that an extra unit of labour will result in.

A profit maximising firm will produce where the marginal product equals 0. If the marginal product is positive (greater than 0), the firm could increase output by employing more of the factor. If the marginal product is negative, the firm could increase output by employing comparatively less of the factor. When the marginal product equals 0, the firm cannot increase output by either increasing or decreasing output, so factors must be employed optimally.

[[Category:Economics]]

Supply curve

2007-06-20T22:08:03Z

Edward:

Supply curve is the graphed relationship between quantity (on the x-axis) and price (on the y-axis) for suppliers of a good or service. In other words, the supply curve illustrates the amount of something that a supplier is willing to produce if he can sell it at a certain price. This curve is usually upward-sloping (i.e., has a positive slope), because a supplier is willing to produce more of something the higher the price he can sell it at.

Under assumptions of perfect competition, the supply curve is the part of the marginal cost curve above its intersection at minimum average variable cost. This represents the 'price equals marginal cost' condition.

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

2007-06-20T21:54:03Z

Edward: /* It shouldn't */

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 2<sup>2</sup>=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== 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. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

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)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: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)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== 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)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::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]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==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)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

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? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

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

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

2007-06-20T21:53:00Z

Edward:

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 2<sup>2</sup>=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== 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)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: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)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== 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)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::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]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==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)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

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? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

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

Mutually assured destruction

2007-06-20T21:27:49Z

Edward: Spelling correction - Reagan

== Introduction ==
'''Mutually Assured Destruction''' (or MAD) was one of the primary [[Cold War]] strategies of the United States and [[Soviet Union]]. The basic premise was:
#Both sides had the capacity to destroy the other completely
#Both sides ultimately wished to survive
#Neither side could preemptively strike the other without assured and complete retaliation
#Therefore, neither side would initiate nuclear war

MAD was both reviled and praised during the Cold War. [[Game Theory|Game theorists]] spent much time debating various changes in policy and their effect on MAD. In the academic formulation, when M.A.D. is in effect, cooperation became a dominant strategy in the [[Prisoner's dilemma]] so long as defection would not lead to any discernible benefit.

As a general rule, a 400 megaton supply of nuclear warheads is sufficient to assure the destruction of large nation, so in calculating nuclear stockpiles to determine if "M.A.D." exists, the goal is to see if you can eliminate the opposition's stockpile in a first strike to below 400 megatons. If you can, then, in the grim calculus of nuclear war, first strike becomes an option.

==Stability vs. Instability==

Alterations in the basic premeses of MAD had the potential to destabilize the balance between the US and USSR, possibly igniting nuclear conflict. Therefore, much time and energy went into debating even small changes in policy.

===Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty===
Anti-Ballistic Missile systems (ABMs) are weapons systems designed to intercept and destroy incoming weapons systems, usually Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Since this could theoretically prevent a fatal retaliatory strike from an opponent, ABMs are considered inherently destabilizing. This fact lead to the ABM treaty, which allowed both sides limited deployment of ABM systems. Current American governmental policy sees this treaty as having become irrelevant with the demise of the USSR.

===Strategic Defense Initiative===
The [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), which began development under the [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] administration, was thought by some groups, especially the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]], to represent a destabilization of MAD. The reasoning behind this was essentially the same as that of the ABM dilemma above.

===First Strike Capabilities===
"First Strike" systems are those which either preserve a fatal second strike component, or entail independent & undetectable first strike systems. '''"SLBMs"'''', or submarine-launched ballistic missiles, are one time of first strike system employed heavily by the United States. The USSR, in the Cold War, employed '''"RLBMs"''', or rail-mounted ballistic missiles, which is to say that the USSR would use their massive railway system to furtively move and conceal a potent first strike or deterrent system.

==Destabilization Events==
*[[Cuban Missile Crisis]]

==Cultural Influences==
The cultural influences of MAD were pervasive, down to the acronym itself.

==MAD in Media==
Many films and novels have highlighted the cultural impact of dealing with the possibility of death on a daily basis. The novel, "Alas, Babylon" centered on the survivors of a nuclear attack, living in Florida, and ended with them receiving assistance from the remnant of the American government. When asked who had won the nuclear war, the government officials replied that no-one won anything.
* [[The Day After]]
* [[Fail-Safe]]
* [[On The Beach]]
* [[Dr. Strangelove]]

Tony Blair

2007-06-20T21:22:57Z

Edward: Blair's band was called 'Ugly Rumours', not Nasty Habits. The British English spelling is appropriate in this case as it the band was British.

[[Image:tblair.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Tony Blair''', full name '''Anthony Charles Lynton Blair''' (born May 6, 1953) has been the [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]] since May 1997. He is a member of and is the current leader of the British [[Labour Party]], having been elected to the party leadership in 1994 following the death of his predecessor, John Smith. He stated publicly on May 10th 2007 that he will step down as UK Prime Minister on June 27th 2007. The current Chancellor, [[Gordon Brown]] is widely expected to be his sucessor [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6644717.stm]

While the Labour Party is a self-described "democratic [[socialist]] party"<ref>[http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=labourdemocracy]</ref>, Blair has coined the phrase "[[New Labour]]" to distinguish his own pro-[[business]] policies from the more [[collectivist]] platform of his predecessors. He has also used the phrase "[[The Third Way]]". He has been criticized by some more left-wing members of the Labour Party for "selling out" to conservative thinking, particularly in his support for the United States in the Iraq War. On the other hand, Blair's policies have been decidedly liberal by American standards: they have included increases in taxation, increases in government spending (particularly on public schools and Britain's [[National Health Service|socialized healthcare system]]), the introduction of a minimum wage, and support for the [[homosexual agenda]].

== Personal ==
[http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp] The son of a barrister and lecturer Leo Blair, Tony Blair was born in [[Edinburgh]], but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. Blair was known as a cheeky, rebellious, and argumentative schoolboy, and at 17 he was threatened with expulsion for persistently breaking school rules.<ref name="bbc">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6506365.stm BBC News | UK | UK Politics | The Tony Blair Story]</ref>. After leaving Fettes with three A levels he studied law at [[Oxford University]], and went on to become a barrister (Lincoln's Inn) himself, before entering politics. Blair married his wife, Cherie Booth QC a barrister and daughter of the actor Tony Booth, in 1980, and they have four children. Cherie hails from [[Liverpool]].

As well as being leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Tony Blair is also the [[MP]] for Sedgefield, a constituency in [[County Durham]] in North East England. He is a competent guitar player and at university was a member of a rock band called Ugly Rumours. His favourite music includes [[The Beatles]], [[The Rolling Stones]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Free (band)|Free]], [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[U2]], [[Coldplay]], [[The Foo Fighters]], and [[Simply Red]].<ref name="bbc" />

While Blair rarely discusses his religious faith in public, he is a convinced Christian, a fact for which he is often criticised or mocked by British commentators. His wife, Cherie, is a Catholic; he has attended Catholic Masses, and it is thought that he may himself be sympathetic to Catholicism, though he is a member of the [[Church of England]].

==Blair's political career==

A combination of the Labour Party's new-found moderation, Blair's personal popularity and the deep unpopularity of the Conservatives under [[John Major]] resulted in a landslide victory for Blair and his party in the 1997 general [[election]], ending 18 years of [[Conservative]] government. Labour easily won re-election in 2001 and, less convincingly, in 2005.

Blair became the first active prime minister to be interviewed in a police investigation, in December 2006<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6292033.stm BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Honours police quizzed McConnell]</ref> and again in January 2007<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6320399.stm BBC NEWS | Politics | Blair interviewed again by police]</ref>, over allegations he had illegally ''nominated'' donors to the Labour Party for peerages - the so called "Cash for Honours" scandal. The government stressed that he was being interviewed only as a witness however, and the nominations of the money lenders were rejected by the independent appointments' commission.<ref name="bbc" /> However the allegations were a popular story in the media, and dogged his final months in office.

==Blair's policies==

During Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, the [[Labour party|Labour]] government made the Bank of England independent, allowing them to set the nation's interest rates (which had previously been set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and has introduced a national [[minimum wage]], in 1998, which has gradually been increased over time. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained their own legislatures, and limited attempts have been made to devolve power to the regions of England (although these have not been successful). Blair's government has also banned fox-hunting and cigarette smoking in public places.

One of the most controversial aspects of Blair's premiership has been his commitment to and support of the Iraq war, which has strongly divided opinion, both in the House and among the British people. His strong support of America and President Bush in particular have set him apart from most European leaders, especially with the parties of the left (including his own Labour Party). This has come at considerable political cost with his own popularity suffering greatly, and the Government may have lost considerable support in the 2005 general election as a result.

==Blair and the media==

In the 1990s in particular, Blair was seen as a charismatic leader, with formidable media performing skills. His most famous television appearance was his tribute to [[Diana, Princess of Wales]] on the morning after her death in August 1997, in which he described her as "the People's Princess" and "the Queen of Hearts". Blair has, however, acquired a reputation for excessive news management, and even for dishonesty, particularly after the Iraq War. Blair's government has also banned fox-hunting and cigarette smoking in public places.

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Labour Party]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blair, Tony}}
[[Category:UK Prime Ministers]]