Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Modern miracles

2010-09-01T21:40:04Z

FionaN: Trapped miners request religious artifacts after miraculously surviving

While [[atheists]] deny that the sorts of miracles described in the Bible are possible, an [[open minded]] individual will readily observe that miracles are not only possible, but take place in the present.

Among the many miraculous events of the past few decades:

*'''The [[Miracle on the Hudson]]''': On 15 January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 (an Airbus A320) successfully ditched into the Hudson River between New York City and New Jersey, after reports of multiple bird strikes. The aircraft came down on the Hudson with no engine power and slightly tail down (to prevent immediate sinking by the nose "plowing in"). All of the 155 passengers and crew aboard escaped and were rescued by passenger ferries and day-cruise boats, in spite of freezing temperatures (the ditching occurred near the Circle Line and New York Waterway piers in midtown Manhattan). The survival rate was 100%.

The captain was Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, 57, a former fighter pilot who had been an airline pilot since leaving the US Air Force in 1980. He is also a safety expert and a glider pilot.

The miraculous nature of this incident was readily apparent even to the [[liberal]] [[mainstream media]]--hence, their willingness to use the name "Miracle on the Hudson," despite their normal distaste for such terminology.

*'''Oil-eating bacteria and the [[Gulf of Mexico oil spill]]''': The Gulf of Mexico oil spill was the most severe in history, releasing an estimated 206 million gallons of crude oil into the water. The Obama administration was unable to mount any kind of effective solution to this spill, and grave concerns about the damage it would cause mounted. On August 25, 2010, it was reported that a new species of bacteria had been discovered: one which was eating the oil that had spilled. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100825/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_oil_eating_bugs</ref>

*'''Miners survive mine collapse:''' On 5 August 2010 copper and gold mine in [[Chile]] collapsed, trapping 33 miners underground. After only a few days of searching, many liberal sources assumed the men were dead. However after 17 days, contact was made with the trapped miners who had miraculously survived against all odds and against the liberal assumptions. The trapped miners expressed their gratitude to [[God]] and even requested religious articles to be lowered down to them to assist with their [[prayer]]s.<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/trapped-miners-to-set-up-make-shift-chapel-to-pray-for-rescue/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Talk:Nazi Party

2010-08-26T16:10:40Z

FionaN: /* Compare and contrast */

==Atheism==

How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

*Well, you are an editor, Lynus, add all the citations you want to support the material. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Hey TK, need some advice. If I find a reference that doesn't describe what it purports to describe what should I do? I got accused of censorship by Andy for deleting a reference that doesn't address the actual topic he says it does. What exactly is "censorship" to the Admins here? In this page's case would I be justified in taking out the atheism part but leaving in pagan due to the obvious fact that according to the blurbs own words only 10% were atheist? Thx --[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::*'''!''' Well, some might think you are new, and of course needing to prove credibility, Linus. Personally I would search for sources that back the material already written, before looking for sources that dispute it. As one builds a record of reliable edits, and ''"substantive contributions"'' to this project, branching out to catching mis-applied citations, or adding further ones to improve articles will be tolerated more than a new editor's changes would be. That help? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:30, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Yes TK that did help, thank you for the polite response.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::*The myth that the Nazis are some kind of polar opposite to the Communists, needs to be squelched. They are both totalitarian and socialist.

::::*The only possible basis for denying this is to assume that "socialist" only applies to Marxism, but this is false. [[von Mises]] explains it all in his books. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I wonder why a Conservative - i.e. Right-wing, you're in the brilliant US of A after all - source would try and pass Hitler, one of the most detestable human beings ever to have lived, off as "Communist" or "Marxist". Come on guys, that's a joke, and a bad one at that. Hitlers early funding came from big business because of the ANTI-Communist agenda he held. The Nazi's deployed 100 more divisions on the Eastern Front than in Normandy, even as the US was landing on the beaches. In a 250-odd division army, that's a helluva difference. He was anti-Communist, and on the Right. You can't really consider yourselves the "trustworthy" encyclopedia with torrid filth like that lying around, can you?
:Two things you need to do, Mark033: the first is that you need to read and compare the 1922 Nazi Party Platform with chapter 4 of the Communist Manifesto. Maybe you'll learn something from simple reading. The second thing is that you need to sign your postings with four tildes "~". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name misconception ==

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from '''''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische''. This would be an [[acronym]] for the [[German|German language]] compound word, formed from the words ''national'' and ''sozialistische''. However, abbreviating ''sozialistische'' as ''zi'' would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of ''nationalsozialistische'', which in German is '''nah-tse'''-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

[[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== new name needed ==

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== leadership ==

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 01:49 4/Nov/08
::to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory '''during''' a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a '''very''' big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT
::well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. ''"Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years."''. There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT
::The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Compare and contrast==

We need to write about the similarities and differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, before we entertain any more views about how "the Nazis were not socialist". But do not use trick arguments based on shifting meanings of ''[[socialism]]''. In particular, we must not pretend that only [[Marxism-Leninism]] is really socialism. We might also need a [[Capitalism and socialism]] article.

In [[capitalism]], investors choose how to invest their money; factory owners decide what to produce and how much; sellers and buyers agree on price. In [[socialism]], the government makes these decisions; evasion of price controls is an economic crime (a "[[black market]]" transaction).

Although neither system has made people uniformly wealthy, we might compare the [[standard of living]] in countries which have tried out the two systems. For example, health care in America vs. Cuba; forget the official propaganda: what are the real conditions in Cuban hospitals for regular citizens? And how long did people in the USSR have to wait in line every day to get ordinary things like bread or shoes?

Anyway, my question is whether Nazi Germany ever put economic controls in place similar to those of Communist countries, such as wage and price controls and factory quotas. And if so, did it have the same effect on the economy as [[state ownership]] did in the USSR? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:04, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::The Nazis put in real control during the war, as did all major countries. (it's called "war socialism") Note that American conservatives all supported the "war socialism" in the USA--and for example Milton Friedman was a key player in setting it up. Before the war German economic controls were not especially elaborate except regarding Jews. The key issue I think for this article is the role of business and labor. The Russians destroyed ALL businesses and the Germans kept them, and indeed before 1942 the businessmen made most of the business. Speer's memoirs are central here--they tell how he took control of the German economy in 1942-43. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:23, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks. That's the kind of stuff we need to know. I want to avoid making a specious argument of the following type:
:::*If a bad man practices something, that thing is bad.
:::*Hitler was a bad man, and he practiced socialism.
:::*Therefore, socialism is bad.
:::I think this fallacy is called "tarring with the same brush" or the "association fallacy".

:::On the other hand, if Hitler's fascist regimentation of all aspects of national life is indeed similar to Communist totalitarianism, then we should point that out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

We also need to be aware of the differences between American and European Conservatism at the time, European conservatism of the early 20th century was concerned not with, as US conservatism is the preservation of the American Constitution, bill of rights et al. But rather with the regaining or conservation of the situation and institutions of 19th century Europe, meaning Merchantilism, Colonialism, Militarism, Imperialism and a centeralised state ruled by an annoited elite, this is ably demostrated by the United Kingdoms Constitutional Crisis http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-94.html in which the predominatly conservative House of Lords vetoed the Budget of the newly elected Liberal (UK meaning) goverment, these 'conservatives' wanted to maintain the power of the Monarch and the Nobility and the Union with Irealnd against the expressed wishes of the Electorate, they have nothing in common with American Conservatism, but the are a prime example of European conservatism, hence the left-right axis really braking down when talking about events of the even close past, and more importantly across culural divides as deep as those between early 20th Century Europe and the modern United states, actually with further thought Hitlers Anti-immigration ,anti-homosexualy, traditional roles for women, nationalism, are all right wing policies still practiced to gretaer or lesser degrees by the american conservatives, arguably corporatism is neo-con and conservative democrat territory, his works programs and 4 year plans are communist however. The left aknowledges the monster on the fringe why does thge roght continualy deny the excistence of it's own monster? No one (at least not I) is suggesting that any western democracy is heading for facism, but the right continually screams that any goverment funding for anything is communism. [[User:Machine13|Machine13]] 11:11, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
:Liberal attempts like that to associate Conservatism with the Nazi Party would be insulting and slanderous if they weren't so laughable. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 12:10, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-08-06T11:40:58Z

FionaN: /* Decrypt */ British mathematicians

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

''" If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):
* Sir Isaac Newton
* Charles Babbage
* Alan Turing
* G.H. Hardy
* Bertrand Russell
* Roger Penrose
* Andrew Wiles
* Arthur Cayley
* William Rowan Hamilton
* George Boole
* Augustus De Morgan
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)