Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T23:17:22Z

GDewey: /* Hysteria */

Fine, let's add some citations. No one seriously doubts that [[liberal grading]] occurs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:As undeniable as [[liberal bias]], [[liberal tricks]] and [[liberal hypocrisy]] - well, actually, [[liberals]] probably do [[liberal denial|deny]] those, haha. :-) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Indeed they do deny it, along with the long list at [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Parody ==

This page was created as a parody, and I don't think that we should have it. While I do believe that some teachers would actually grade like that, I think that it is rare enough to not warrant it's own page. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Looking at the edit history, it would seem that Aschlafly might disagree. Indeed. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:What evidence do you have that it was created as a parody? It doesn't read any differently than many of the other liberal behavior essays on the site. Many editors have contributed to it including Andy who clearly doesn't see it as a parody. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:30, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Many teachers grade like that. In a mere 5 minutes I found a clear example. If you researched it, then I'm confident you could find others. And the reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Ask ''any'' [[conservative]] student who has taken classes from many [[liberal]] outside of pure math and science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Your example is not grading students based on political views. It is an example of teachers rushing to judgement and punishing students for a crime they did not commit. there is nothing liberal about it. Oh, and i have taken classes from liberal teachers. In fact I got an A when I probably deserved a B. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, I agree with you that this is a real issue and a serious one at that. If a student wants to write a conservative essay about the role of a conservative economic policy, then the essay should be judged on its style and merits and shouldn't be graded down purely because of an ideological disagreement. The question is whether or not the article as it was originally written was a parody. Tim seems to think so. Indeed, so much so that he blocked the original author. Where's the evidence for this being a parody? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::discussion witnessed at another wiki which is not allowed to be named here. I would post you a diff, but that would not be allowed either. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::: I don't know -- or care -- whether a parodist contributed to the entry. Often the truth is ridiculed and parodied. I do know that [[liberal grading]] is a real problem and the student was not downgraded at Duke because anyone seriously thought he was a criminal. He had not even been charged with a crime. He was downgraded as a pure result of [[liberal grading]], because the student had done something [[politically incorrect]]. And that was an example I found in a mere 5 minutes on the internet. Have others here done as much research?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::What did the student do that was "politically incorrect"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::You also have yet to explain how the grading was liberal. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Oh come now, you've been here long enough to know the score. The "politically incorrect act" was rape, because - you know - mentioning what the person was actually accused of might weaken the case just a wee bit. The grading was liberal because EVERY professor at a major university is a liberal, QED. It's best not to argue the toss, because otherwise ''someone'' is 95% certain to question your position on school prayer to avoid having to actually present a rational argument. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Well you know, Andy I see what you mean when you say Liberal grading - and I do believe that grades on papers will occasionally be bumped up if the paper represents a view that agrees with the teacher (and let's face it - a lot of public school teachers are liberal); but at the same time, I don't think it's significant enough or frequent enough for an encyclopedia article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Do you believe ''any'' of the "liberal x" articles deserve an entry? I think there's a reason why Britannica doesn't have an article on [[Liberal style]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Liberal tricks]], [[Liberal obfuscation]], [[Liberal logic]], [[Liberal tools]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal Myths]], [[Liberal hypocrisy]], [[Liberal hysteria]], [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Hollywood values]], and that reason isn't liberal censorship of "conservative facts" --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== Hysteria ==

I have to say Aschlafly that all these liberal articles sound almost like conservative hysteria. Liberalism is just an political ideology. You seem to make out that people with liberal views are monsters with one aim - to bring down society. To cheat, to lie, deny and destroy. Liberals are just like other people. No more deceitful than the next person. I live in a liberal country and while I dont agree with some of the laws round here everyone seems happy and life ticks along quite nicely.
You dont need to agree with liberalism but you also dont need to panic about it.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:54, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: The only people who are in "panic" are the [[liberals]] who talk, talk, talk and even vandalize this site. There is no "panic" by [[conservatives]] here. We do tell the truth, and the panic is by [[liberals]] in response to that truth. It makes them uncomfortable and they are not used to hearing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: AAAAAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!!! *runs around in ever decreasing circles* --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:17, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Tort

2008-02-26T23:15:13Z

GDewey: Removed link. The reference is to the ''tort'' of deceit, not the concept generally.

Torts are a diverse collection of civil wrongs which are actionable outside of either contract or statute law. Torts include negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, breach of statutory duty, defamation, trespass to the person, trespass to land, passing off, malicious falsehood, deceit, conversion and various so-called economic torts.

The word tort comes from the Latin ''tortum'', which means bent or twisted.<ref>http://m-w.com/dictionary/tort</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Law]]

Trust

2008-02-26T23:12:05Z

GDewey:

A '''trust''' is a legal device used to manage real or personal property, established by one person (granter or settler) for the benefit of another (beneficiary). See also [[trustee]].

The trust is the most important innovation of [[Equity|equity]]. A trust is an arrangement whereby one person (the trustee) may hold the legal title to property on behalf of another person (the beneficiary) who holds the equitable title. A trust does not interfere with the legal position; at law the title is held by the trustee in the normal way. However, equity recognizes that the trustee does not hold the title for his or her own benefit and the benefits of the ownership will accrue to the beneficiary.

In the [[United States]] a trust is also defined as any sort of business dealing in which the end result in a total monopoly of a single industry. These types of trusts arose around the mid-19th century and proceeded to strangle the U.S. economy for approximately fifty years before serious federal laws (now referred to as antitrust laws) were enacted to fight them. Corporations broken up or fined under antitrust laws include U.S. Steel, AT&T, and Microsoft.
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T22:33:48Z

GDewey: /* We don't censor here */ 10 seconds wasted

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence".
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also, I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: It took me only 10 seconds to prove you wrong. See [http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=13803].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Oh dear. You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. The abortionists were murdered ''because they were abortionists''. There is no indication that Dr. Fenton's killer was motivated by the fact that she was a psychiatrist. I thought that this distinction was made pretty clear above. Perhaps if you spent more than 10 seconds... --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T22:10:07Z

GDewey: /* We don't censor here */

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T21:23:22Z

GDewey:

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T21:03:43Z

GDewey: /* Google Searches are not a way to quantify data */

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T06:09:19Z

GDewey:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T05:33:17Z

GDewey:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T05:32:42Z

GDewey:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T05:16:12Z

GDewey:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T05:11:02Z

GDewey:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T22:33:07Z

GDewey: /* We don't censor here */

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:DeanS

2008-02-08T00:08:04Z

GDewey: /* Delete Notice */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Learn_together and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agreee? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:Yes, I agree. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::Excellent my friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:16, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)

:Good. How about if you make a team page where we can collaborate on our efforts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::: Any suggestion to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)

::::[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Any comment about the actual list? Which do you think could be next one? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:: [[Jesus Christ]] would be my choice. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==[[Genocide]]==

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Present ==

Have a present:

[[Image:Crocoite.jpg]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:Gracias Joaquín y Feliz Navidad a ti. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:50, 24 December 2007 (EST)

==Image==
Great link to the 360º image from Everest! Incredible view. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Fox! Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:32, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Webcam links ==

These webcam links are very interesting! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Dan! I found a link on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318306,00.html Fox News - Links to Webcams Around the World] that has other great links we can add to our articles. I'm going to be taking a break from editing soon, so feel free to peruse the views and add some to Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:29, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:: Excellent material. Good work! Have a happy new year, too! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Fantastic blocks ==

Fantastic blocks, Crocoite! God bless you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:Thank you Andy :) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest4 ==

Crocoite, we need you in Contest4. Can you join it? In particular, your front-page edits and archiving are terrific. Please add your name at [[Conservapedia:Contest4]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:40, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Andy, thanks for the invite. Due to work commitments seven days a week now, I will have limited participation. Good luck with the contest! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Good work with our team page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Brian. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::I will get around to tallying my running total today; twice I've done it and neglected to remove a certain four letter word from one of the blocks I did, causing the spam filter to block my score page edit :D I am always a bit busier on Shabbat, but I will try to do more shortly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks Fox. I also asked the judges - [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Contest4&curid=56045&diff=374556&oldid=370777 How many points for adding categories to images] since I know we both added cats yesterday. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::Yeah, I saw; I think that 2 is justified, as they are getting two or three cats added, and it can be slightly harder to figure exactly where - as an image - they belong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Mine were really easy, since I just added 1 cat each + I just used the cat from the article the image links to; of course 2 pts each would be nice ;-). I'll leave it to the judges to decide before I score the pts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Great work in the contest :) Much appreciated [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Fox!. I wanted to do more, but that's all I could do considering I've been working seven days a week. Thanks to you and the rest of our team, we won again! Of course, in the end, Conservapedia is a much better place due to the efforts from both teams. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:07, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:I voted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 11:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)
==Wow==
Lol - usually, after I put a delete tag on an article, at least a few seconds go by before it's deleted - but you got it in a split second! Great job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Iduan. You're making a lot of positive contributions to this site. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the welcome ==

While I realize its bot driven and has all the sincerity of a mass mailing I would like to say thanks. I just discovered this site and I'm almost ecstatic to be here. Finally an internet community that gets it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 15:31, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:Actually, my welcome notices are ''not'' bot driven, though I do use a template. I saw your one edit, and gave you the welcome. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest 5==
Hey Crocoite, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have. Thanks, --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:23, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Great Job==
Nice job on [[CREDO Mobile]] Crocoite!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:More on this, just so your aware - due to some [[Talk:CREDO_Mobile|a question Fox brought up]] as to whether all the organizations were liberal or not, I redid the phrasing a bit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=CREDO_Mobile&diff=next&oldid=384002] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:38, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Iduan. Your edit is appropriate. Since a liberal company has identified all their favorite groups, it is fair enough to identify them here on Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for those recent blocks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 7 February 2008 (EST)

:Your welcome Andy. I'm not in the mood for their liberal games. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 06:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

== Delete Notice ==

The way that delete notices work is that you discuss the matter on the appropriate page. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm not discussing this with you. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:06, 7 February 2008 (EST)
::WHy not? THe delete notice was a genuine attempt to improve the site. I cannot understand why you would not discuss. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-08T00:06:22Z

GDewey: /* Your userpage... */

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:50, 19 January 2008 (EST)
==Names==
Yeah you might want to be careful about that - I mean, especially with users like "Godisalie666" - I'm not sure what possessed you to put a welcome template on his page. Just try to show more discretion.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Dewey it's happening again--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Dewey, may I ask you why you are welcoming blocked users? :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 00:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::How can you tell that he is a blocked user? I was just amused by the name. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Well, if you're amused by the name, the name's likely inappropriate - see above. The way you tell is by letting the user make a few edits before you add the welcome template - if the edits are legit, then you can welcome the user, if they are not, then you don't.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::HUA --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:13, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Block==
We could have a debate about the Ten Commandments' influence on the rule of law, but I don't think you'd win it. Absent debate and discussion, singlehandedly removing facts from articles, or calling them into question, is just not in your best interest, and not in the site's best interest, either.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==Your userpage...==
...is a bit...er...snide and nasty. I suggest you change it very quickly. Complaining about something that is already done with is very immature...'''''GET OVER IT'''''.(not to be mean or anything and I hope no offense is taken) :P [[User:BethanyS|~SYSOP BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 18:35, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::I think he has a right to be disgruntled. Instead of berating him, perhaps sysops such as yourself should endeavour to provide a more meaningful check and balance upon clear abuses of executive power. Just a thought. --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 18:51, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::RedFive, though I do not fully agree with the block '''''reason'''''(I would have blocked him for other reasons which are my own) I think that acting like a baby and grousing about an over and done with deed instead of accepting it with a grain of salt is ridiculous and ''immature''. Most people would not care if Dewey was blocked ''or'' why he was blocked. Thanks for you time. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 19:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, you know, thanks for providing your views on my user page. I may review yours some day. Thanks for '''your''' time. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:05, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:Yes, you should be glad it's not one of them five year blocks they give around here. Why, you'd be ready to graduate High School by then![[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 18:48, 7 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-08T00:05:41Z

GDewey: /* Your userpage... */

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:50, 19 January 2008 (EST)
==Names==
Yeah you might want to be careful about that - I mean, especially with users like "Godisalie666" - I'm not sure what possessed you to put a welcome template on his page. Just try to show more discretion.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Dewey it's happening again--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Dewey, may I ask you why you are welcoming blocked users? :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 00:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::How can you tell that he is a blocked user? I was just amused by the name. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Well, if you're amused by the name, the name's likely inappropriate - see above. The way you tell is by letting the user make a few edits before you add the welcome template - if the edits are legit, then you can welcome the user, if they are not, then you don't.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::HUA --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:13, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Block==
We could have a debate about the Ten Commandments' influence on the rule of law, but I don't think you'd win it. Absent debate and discussion, singlehandedly removing facts from articles, or calling them into question, is just not in your best interest, and not in the site's best interest, either.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==Your userpage...==
...is a bit...er...snide and nasty. I suggest you change it very quickly. Complaining about something that is already done with is very immature...'''''GET OVER IT'''''.(not to be mean or anything and I hope no offense is taken) :P [[User:BethanyS|~SYSOP BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 18:35, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::I think he has a right to be disgruntled. Instead of berating him, perhaps sysops such as yourself should endeavour to provide a more meaningful check and balance upon clear abuses of executive power. Just a thought. --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 18:51, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::RedFive, though I do not fully agree with the block '''''reason'''''(I would have blocked him for other reasons which are my own) I think that acting like a baby and grousing about an over and done with deed instead of accepting it with a grain of salt is ridiculous and ''immature''. Most people would not care if Dewey was blocked ''or'' why he was blocked. Thanks for you time. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 19:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, you know, thatnks for providing your views on my user page. I may review yours some day. Thanks for your time. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:05, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:Yes, you should be glad it's not one of them five year blocks they give around here. Why, you'd be ready to graduate High School by then![[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 18:48, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Hollywood values

2008-02-08T00:03:56Z

GDewey:

{{Delete Notice}}

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which has led to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, [[disease]] and death. 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a ''disrespect'' for:

* [[marriage]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of Hollywood values.

Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*Heath Ledger, 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
* [[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* [[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* [[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* [[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.
* [[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
* Janis Joplin, 27, heroin overdose
* Lenny Bruce, 40, heroin overdose
* Chris Farley, 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
* Brian Epstein, 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
* [[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
* [[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia
* John Bonham,32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
* Margaux Hemingway, 42, suicide

Hollywood values often include stealing and committing other crimes. Here are some examples:

* Winona Ryder was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/</ref>
* [[Roman Catholic]] [[Mel Gibson]] hurled Antisemitic abuse at police officers after being arrested for drink-driving on a notoriously dangerous road.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html</ref>

(many more examples available)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

User talk:DeanS

2008-02-08T00:03:10Z

GDewey: Delete Notice

User talk:JoeManga

2008-02-08T00:01:58Z

GDewey:

Why did you put Heath Ledger back into the Hollywood values article without discussing it with me? You must have seen that I just removed it. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:31, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:I saw you removed Ledger ''in toto''. I reinserted relevant facts that are not in dispute by anybody. Now, whether there should ''be'' such a page you're already taking care of that end. I will, in future, of course, refer to you, Your Lordship, in whatever edits I make. [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 18:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)
::I would have thought that it was a matter of basic courtesy to discuss with an editor before reverting an edit without comment. Did you bother to read the talk page? Just what exactly is the connection between "Hollywood values" and an accidental overdose? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:01, 7 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-07T23:38:15Z

GDewey:

User talk:JoeManga

2008-02-07T23:31:36Z

GDewey: New page: Why did you put Heath Ledger back into the Hollywood values article without discussing it with me? You must have seen that I just removed it. --~~~~

Why did you put Heath Ledger back into the Hollywood values article without discussing it with me? You must have seen that I just removed it. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:31, 7 February 2008 (EST)

List of Prime Ministers of Australia

2008-02-07T23:29:26Z

GDewey:

Following is a list of Prime Ministers of [[Australia]] from [[Federation]] to the present.<ref>[http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/hist/primmins.htm Prime Ministers of Australia]</ref>
{|border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=2 width=90%
!<big>Prime Minister</big>||<big>Dates</big>
|-
|'''Sir [[Edmund Barton]], PC, GCMG, KC''' ([[Protectionist Party]])
|1 January 1901—24 September 1903 (2 years, 8 months, 24 days)
|-
|'''[[Alfred Deakin]]''' (Protectionist Party)
|24 September 1903—27 April 1904 (7 months, 4 days)
|-
|'''[[John Watson|John Christian Watson]]''' ([[Australian Labor Party]])
|27 April 1904—17 August 1904 (3 months, 21 days)
|-
|'''[[George Reid|George Houstoun Reid]] (later Sir George), PC, KC''' (Free Trade)
|18 August 1904—5 July 1905 (10 months, 18 days)
|-
|'''Alfred Deakin''' (Protectionist Party)
|5 July 1905—13 November 1908 (3 years, 4 months, 9 days)
|-
|'''[[Andrew Fisher]]''' (Australian Labor Party)
|13 November 1908—2 June 1909 (6 months, 21 days)
|-
|'''[[Alfred Deakin]]''' (Protectionist Party)
|2 June 1909—29 April 1910 (10 months, 28 days)
|-
|'''Andrew Fisher''' (Australian Labor Party)
|29 April 1910—24 June 1913 (3 years, 1 month, 26 days)
|-
|'''[[Joseph Cook]] (later Sir Joseph)''' ([[Liberal Party of Australia]])
|24 June 1913—17 September 1914 (1 year, 2 months, 25 days)
|-
|'''Andrew Fisher''' (Australian Labor Party)
|17 September 1914—27 October 1915 (1 year, 1 month, 11 days)
|-
|'''[[William Hughes|William Morris Hughes]]''' (Australian Labor Party; [[Nationalist Party]] from 1917)
|27 October 1915—9 February 1923 (7 years, 3 months, 14 days)
|-
|'''[[Stanley Bruce|Stanley Melbourne Bruce]], PC, CH, MC''' (Nationalist Party)
|9 February 1923—22 October 1929 (6 years, 8 months, 14 days)
|-
|'''[[James Scullin|James Henry Scullin]], PC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|22 October 1929—6 January 1932 (2 years, 2 months, 16 days)
|-
|'''[[Joseph Lyons|Joseph Aloysius Lyons]], PC, CH''' ([[United Australia Party]])
|6 January 1932—7 April 1939 (7 years, 3 months, 2 days)
|-
|'''Sir [[Earle Page|Earle Christmas Grafton Page]], PC, GCMG''' ([[Australian Country Party]])
|7 April 1939—26 April 1939 (20 days)
|-
|'''[[Robert Menzies|Robert Gordon Menzies]], PC, KC''' ([[United Australia Party]])
|26 April 1939—29 August [[1941]] (2 years, 4 months, 4 days)
|-
|'''[[Arthur Fadden|Arthur William Fadden]] (later Sir Arthur)''' ([[Country Party]])
|29 August 1941—7 October 1941 (1 month, 9 days)
|-
|'''[[John Curtin]], PC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|7 October 1941—5 July 1945 (3 years, 8 months, 29 days)
|-
|'''[[Francis Forde|Francis Michael Forde]], PC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|6 July 1945—13 July 1945 (8 days)
|-
|'''[[Joseph Chifley|Joseph Benedict ("Ben") Chifley]], PC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|13 July 1945—19 December 1949 (4 years, 5 months, 7 days)
|-
|'''[[Robert Menzies|Robert Gordon Menzies]] (later Sir Robert), PC, KC''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|19 December 1949—26 January 1966 (16 years, 1 month, 8 days)
|-
|'''[[Harold Holt|Harold Edward Holt]], PC, CH''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|26 January 1966—19 December 1967 (1 year, 10 months, 23 days)
|-
|'''[[John McEwen]] (later Sir John), PC''' (Country Party)
|19 December 1967—10 January 1968 (23 days)
|-
|'''[[John Gorton|John Grey Gorton]], PC''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|10 January 1968—10 March 1971 (3 years, 2 months)
|-
|'''[[William McMahon]] (later Sir William), PC, CH''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|10 March 1971—5 December 1972 (1 year, 8 months, 25 days)
|-
|'''[[Gough Whitlam|Edward Gough Whitlam]], QC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|5 December 1972—11 November 1975 (2 years, 11 months, 7 days)
|-
|'''[[Malcolm Fraser|John Malcolm Fraser]], PC, CH''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|11 November 1975—11 March 1983 (7 years, 4 months)
|-
|'''[[Robert Hawke|Robert James Lee Hawke]], AC''' (Australian Labor Party)
|11 March 1983—20 December 1991 (8 years, 9 months, 10 days)
|-
|'''[[Paul Keating|Paul John Keating]]''' (Australian Labor Party)
|20 December 1991—11 March 1996 (4 years, 2 months, 20 days)
|-
|'''[[John Howard|John Winston Howard]]''' (Liberal Party of Australia)
|11 March 1996—3 December 2007 (11 years, 8 months, 22 days)
|-
|'''[[Kevin Rudd|Kevin Michael Rudd]]''' (Australian Labor Party)
|3 December 2007—
|}

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Australia]]

Hollywood values

2008-02-07T23:24:34Z

GDewey: Delete Notice

{{Delete Notice}}

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which has led to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, [[disease]] and death. 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a ''disrespect'' for:

* [[marriage]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of Hollywood values.

Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
* [[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* [[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* [[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* [[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.
* [[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
* Janis Joplin, 27, heroin overdose
* Lenny Bruce, 40, heroin overdose
* Chris Farley, 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
* Brian Epstein, 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
* [[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
* [[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia
* John Bonham,32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
* Margaux Hemingway, 42, suicide

Hollywood values often include stealing and committing other crimes. Here are some examples:

* Winona Ryder was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/</ref>
* [[Roman Catholic]] [[Mel Gibson]] hurled Antisemitic abuse at police officers after being arrested for drink-driving on a notoriously dangerous road.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html</ref>

(many more examples available)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Hollywood values

2008-02-07T22:52:42Z

GDewey: Removed unwarranted slur on my countryman Ledger

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which has led to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, [[disease]] and death. 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a ''disrespect'' for:

* [[marriage]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of Hollywood values.

Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
* [[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* [[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* [[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* [[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.
* [[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
* Janis Joplin, 27, heroin overdose
* Lenny Bruce, 40, heroin overdose
* Chris Farley, 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
* Brian Epstein, 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
* [[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
* [[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia
* John Bonham,32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
* Margaux Hemingway, 42, suicide

Hollywood values often include stealing and committing other crimes. Here are some examples:

* Winona Ryder was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/</ref>
* [[Roman Catholic]] [[Mel Gibson]] hurled Antisemitic abuse at police officers after being arrested for drink-driving on a notoriously dangerous road.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html</ref>

(many more examples available)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Talk:Liberal

2008-02-05T22:27:37Z

GDewey: /* Liberal */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2008-02-05T04:31:32Z

GDewey: /* Liberal */

Talk:Liberal

2008-02-05T04:27:12Z

GDewey: /* Liberal */

Talk:Liberal

2008-02-05T03:43:17Z

GDewey: /* Liberal */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
 

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-02-02T02:03:28Z

GDewey: Back to where we started

Sorry, my bad. I was confusing "center of the solar system" with "center of the universe". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I have reluctantly left in the word "generally" that someone else inserted. With the 20th century discoveries of relativity, orbit in the Milky Way, Big Bang, etc, heliocentrism is pretty obsolete. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

You can't be serious about heliocentrism being obsolete. There's no other way to explain retrograde motion of the planets, unless you bring up epicycles, which have never once been observed by any spacecraft, satellite, or telescope. This page needs a great deal of work, and i would recommend you just scrap what you have and start over. I'd be willing to do it, but something tells me you dont agree with me that the sun is the center of the solar system... {{unsigned|Jwalker}}

When he says heliocentrism is obsolete, I doubt he's saying that the earth and other planets in the solar system don't revolve around the sun. I think he's pointing out that the entire universe is not centered at the sun. The entire solar system revolves around the center of the milky way, in the same way that the moon revolves around the earth while the earth revolves around the sun. [[User:Hermann1359|Hermann1359]] 17:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:I have made some changes to the article in an effort to clarify. Clearly no-one holds a heliocentric view of the universe any more. Even a strict heliocentric view of the solar system does not really work because orbits are elliptical (although that might be getting to a level of detail that is beyond the scope of this article). I think that the paragraph referring to relativity is incorrect, however. Where orbits are concerned there are preferred frames of reference. More editing required I think. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Orbits are eliptical, yes, but still centered on the sun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:00, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::The sun is at one of the foci, not the center. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:11, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::Ah, curses. Public school lied to me again. So what is at the center of the solar system, if not Sol? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, I did suggest that I might be descending into a level of detail that was beyond the scope of the article. I suspect that it would be a bit difficult to determine the exact centre of the solar system at any given point in time. In fact, now that I think about it I am not sure that I fully understand exactly what is meant by the exact center of the solar system. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 18:32, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::Yeah, it is a bit beyond the scope. However, Sol is the closest thing we have to a center... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:34, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Hey, Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we revolve around something else. I was merely pointing out that the sun is not a fixed central point (as it is often conceived). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:39, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: Why do yo say heliocentrism became less popular in the 1700s? It became MORE popular. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::: I was referring to the concept of the sun being the center of the universe, not the concept of the sun being the center of the solar system. The latter became more popular, the former less so. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps the article should be sectioned, with one bit dedicated to the center of the universe view, the other to the center of the solar system view? To avoid things like this, of course. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:32, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::: What is the purpose to making the distinction? In ancient times, the solar system was the known universe. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Keyword there being ancient. Bats were also called birds, but we don't class them as such now. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:16, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Back to where we started ==

I see the article is back to where it was.

Problem is that it just ignores the most commonly understood definition of heliocentrism: the sun as center of the solar system.

I note that RSchlafly didn't bother telling anyone that he was going to make the edit. I assume therefore that he will have no problem with me doing the same. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-02T01:54:02Z

GDewey: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-02T01:22:56Z

GDewey: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-02T01:20:01Z

GDewey: /* Abortions and breast cancer */ Remove?

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-01T05:29:45Z

GDewey: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-01T05:13:57Z

GDewey: /* Names */

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-01T05:09:50Z

GDewey: /* Names */

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-01T05:02:28Z

GDewey: Abortions and breast cancer

User talk:DanH

2008-02-01T04:54:23Z

GDewey: /* Blocking Barikada */

[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|left|'''DanH''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilance against fascists, liberals, vandals & trolls.]]

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

==Blocked User NW==

Sorry about that, I didn't know he was blocked yet. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Evidence of evolution==
What's with the moving my friend? It's intended to be an encyclopedic article about the subject, not an personal essay of some sort. [[User:Honestyandtruth|Honestyandtruth]] 00:00, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

== I have sent you an important email about communists and the gay conspiracy! ==

I sent one also to Rob. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Funny ==

I enjoyed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:ChavezFan&diff=324719&oldid=324649 this], and thought I'd let you know. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 16:09, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Endorse block==
I endorse to block on [[User:Maestro]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Maestro contribs]; we may have to review all these edits and consider other actions. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:32, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, thanks for unblocking me. Never thought I'd say this to a Jayhawker, but you're okay. After that whupping your football team dished out last week, you might even get this Mizzou grad to cheer for KU. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Anything to keep my mind of the Rams. Jeez...BTW, any chance on getting my user page unblocked when my probation expires? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 08:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:If he is on probation he should have the opportunity to prove his quality having his talk page open to work. Is it truth? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:37, 8 November 2007 (EST)

*Joaquin, whenever any editor is restored, their pages should be unlocked and/or re-created. If that does not happen, it is usually just a mistake. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Wes Clarke. ==

My bad on the spelling. Sorry. [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 21:50, 4 November 2007 (EST)

==[[User:Oi]]==

What, no warning? I thought you took the pledge. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:46, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:All the pledge says is I won't block for no reason. :) Also, I think "Oi" is a term associated with skinhead culture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

::Jolly good. And here's an early Christmas present for you: [[Image:Dewtree.jpg|right|thumb|For Christmas time]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you! That should last me through the season. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:06, 7 November 2007 (EST)

*Ed is like Father Christmas! How magical...a tree made from Mountain Dew cans! :P --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey Dan! So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks! (Oh, and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest, we must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]23:59, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Vandal==

Block this vandal please, thanks. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

== Go, go, go ==

42 +++++++++++++++++ a lot more... gooooooooo --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:29, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Unblock Article ==

Hi Dan, could you please unblock [[Fascism]]? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Kentucky ==

Hi, Dan, I just wanted to leave you a note about your edit to [[Kentucky]]. While Governor Fletcher lost the recent election, he still is governor. I have re-listed him as such, as his term does not end until next month. Thanks, [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That sounds accurate. We just have to remember to change it on December 11! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Will do! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::Just thought I'd remind you of the Governor's expiration of term tomorrow, as I do not expect to be on Conservapedia much in the coming weeks. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 20:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== See also ==

I am sorry, but I '''do not''' agree in what you are doing in Salma and Elvis. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you for your reply. Salmas' links were discussed with TK at it's time. Elvis' are quite related as they send you to rock music. But, if you think it is better to change them let me know and I will find some ones more appropriated. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:*Joaquín, the issue was discussed with Mr.Schlafly, and the "See Also" should be as specific as possible. I think you would agree that "Rock Music" is breathtakingly broad, eh? Perhaps you could make sure they are more specific? Thank you for your patience, my friend! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:22, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::OK. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:33, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==Westboro Baptist Church==
Dan, Do you mind if we unlock [[Westboro Baptist Church]] to allow for adding some content? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Fine with me! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==MU vs. KU==

That's gotta hurt. Were you there? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 02:01, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Yep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== MASS REMOVAL??? ==

Where exactly did I "mass remove" information as you allege on my page? All I have done has been to copyedit and work on clarity and presentation. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Check the edit history - that was someone else - the paragraph in question was not there when I edited. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

== Page Move ==

Dan, could you please move [[Meningoenephalitis]] to [[Meningoencephalitis]]? The reference used to find the definition has a mispelling (it's missing a "c"). Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks. BTW your recent block comment was hilarious. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door, you know. And divide by 0. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:51, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Vandal Pages==
Howdy--You might want to boot these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hamidp--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. Thanks. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

== Superb blocks ==

Superb blocks, Dan! The break will arrive soon. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Protect ==

Hi Dan, can you protect [[genocide]] until a concensus can be reached? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for protecting the image of Frida Kahlo :) I appreciate your assistance -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 01:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks for all your hard work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== User "Awesome" ==

DOH! You beat me to it... well, I don't have admin access either, so the best I could do was send a threating letter to him. :( I'm glad to see that someone is watching out though. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Is there a way that I could raise these people to your attention faster? Like a template or something? It would likely save admins/sysops some time. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I think what you did is sufficient enough :) Thanks for your help. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Delete Article ==

Hi Dan,

Can you please delete [[hososcope]]. Someone made a spelling error in its creation. (I already created the appropriate article.)

Thanks,

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Let's add [[December 2]] in there as well. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for all your hard work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Dan. I've noticed you are still quite the workhorse yourself. ;-) How about if we add one more for deletion and prevent recreation [[Lulz]]. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::Could you also please delete article [[Transvestitism]]. I'm not sure if we want to prevent recreation or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Dan. I am checking at this moment all his contribuitions. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:52, 20 December 2007 (EST)

: THANK YOU AGAIN. I did a little mistake, now [[Barney]] is ok.

::: Hi, I have 3 questions if you please: Could a deleted article be recovered?, could an "Image" be used to link to a CP article? and, at the tall page, what means the red color and the green bars? Thank you for your time. Have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:10, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Dude, why did you block me? ==

Please unblock [[user:FightPerniciousSwarm]]. You took a pledge, and then you blocked me for not using my "real" name. Dude, do you want help here or not? [[User:MichaelHunt|MichaelHunt]] 18:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:I kind of agree, I mean, [[User:Karajou]], [[User:CollegeRepublican]], and heaps more. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 18:55, 27 December 2007 (EST)
::When you sign up, it clearly says '''frivolous''' user names will be blocked. "FightPerniciousSwarm" is frivolous. So is Michael Hunt, probably. I'm not stupid... I know what happens when you abbreviate it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:57, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'd rather get the "FightPerniciousSwarm" account back. It is far from frivolous. Fighting the pernicious liberal swarm is what I do. [[User:MichaelHunt|MichaelHunt]] 19:06, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Please delete all of my contributions to the template space. They did not work out. ==

Please delete all of my contributions to the template space. They did not work out. I think you might need to update the wiki software for the templates to work. [[User:MichaelHunt|MichaelHunt]] 19:05, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks, I see you're deleting them. I'd like to come back as my first user name if possible. [[User:MichaelHunt|MichaelHunt]] 19:08, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I don't know, after all... if you ever visit a University campus, you have probably noticed that freshmen guppy up during the first weeks on campus. Okay. I'll unblock it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 27 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, they do. Thank you sir. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 19:12, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Category ==

Hi Dan,

I'm trying to move the entries from Basketball players to Basketball Players (in line with the manual of style). I usually create the category at the end when I've done them all. Please don't fix them. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Okay, thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==[[Liberal]]==

Okay to unprotect for PhineasBogg? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

==Big vocabulary==

Inauspicious? Eschew obfuscation! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Great block ==

Great block this afternoon, Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:14, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks!!! ==

Thanks so much for the second chance: I have already started trying to make valuable contribution to your web site.

Thanks again very much so!

== curses! ==

But that was only a test run. Maybe, say, 100 might be in order. From each of us at Ebaumsworld. --[[User:HPearce|HPearce]] 15:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

For catching the vandal! The username was a dead giveaway. I wish I could banhammer him... he even got my page...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Question ==

Dan, if you get a chance would you mind shooting me an IM? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)
==Just FYI==
Hey Dan, I thought I'd figured out what happened to the Harry Truman page, and just to let you know: the problem was the user inserted <nowiki>{{user:Iekl}}</nowiki> in a ref tag (if your interested - see the section "Selection for Vice Presedency" http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Truman&oldid=356407&action=edit ). Nice job fixing it so quickly!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! This will be helpful. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Christianity ==

You locked [[Christianity]] back in May. There's been a bit of activity there lately, with sysops having to add suggestions made by others. Do you think it's worth unlocking the article and seeing how it would go? It could always be locked again if necessary, of course. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:Let's give it a shot. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 08:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==I feel bad==
Dan, the warning you just gave to Luther Bifteck is my fault - not his. He removed information correctly, and I wasn't thinking, so I re-added it, but then reverted myself - he removed (again, correctly) the statement that "in God we trust" is in the pledge - I (and probably you too) was thinking "under God" - so yeah, that's my bad.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:29, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:Thanks. I caught that soon after I did it, and was kind of embarrassed. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:30, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:: Don't be too hard on yourself, who among us does not make a mistake every now and then? To your credit you quickly noticed and remedied. :) [[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==For Deletion==
Thanks for deleting all those articles!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:56, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Wow... they were all from a vandal? --[[User:Liam Spencer|''' L.S. ''']] 17:04, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Blocking Barikada ==

I am not sure why you have blocked one of this sites most prolific editors. I have been unable to find the "crude sexual reference" in question. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:25, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Was due to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=381634 this] talk page edit - and the use of the word "t*t"? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::Yes. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:31, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::Interesting. He appears to be making a legitimate point however, so the usage was not just gratuitous. Perhaps he should have used the word "breast". I assume that there is an acceptable word that wouldn't get an editor banned.

:::I find the offence taken at the use of some words and the various ways that people use to avoid it a bit curious. I note, for example, that Feebas has used "t*t". We all know what the "*" in "t*t" stands for. Why is that in any way better than using the whole word? Surely it is the use of the word we are worried about, not just the actual appearance of the letters together. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:37, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::::Then again why is "br**st" any better than "t*t"? Or "h**ter" perhaps? A word represents a thing. Are we offended by the thing or the word? Curiouser and curiouser. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:44, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:Anybody who gets a one hour block on Conservapedia is usually rather lucky. I would agree that meaning is generally important, but the use of coarse language generally expedites the course of desensitization. Plus, let's be honest, this is a family website. There's no reason to use that word here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:46, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::I understand the conventions. I guess I am just interested in the psychology behind them, although I suppose that this is probably not the appropriate page to air all of that. Perhaps it might be worth an essay page some time. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:50, 27 January 2008 (EST)

... I was blocked? I didn't even notice. :/ I don't consider the word "tit" to be all that crude, though. I can think of several worse ways to say it. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:47, 31 January 2008 (EST)

: HE SAID IT AGAIN!!! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Great work ==

Great work on the blocking ... and unblocking. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal

2008-02-01T03:39:34Z

GDewey: You should have looked at the talk page first

In the [[United States]] a '''liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* tax and spend
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[affirmative action]]
* [[political correctness]]<ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Free public [[education]] regardless of family income
* government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]<ref>See also [[Republican in name only]]</ref>
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limiting [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|top|<center>One satirist's conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]
* promoting [[liberal deceit]] if it advances their goals, or at least tolerating it
 

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

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

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-02-01T03:29:03Z

GDewey:

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2008-02-01T03:23:28Z

GDewey: A counterfeit counterfeit

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-02-01T00:39:23Z

GDewey:

Liberal

2008-02-01T00:27:44Z

GDewey: As per talk page discussion with Aschlafly

In the United States a '''liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* tax and spend
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[affirmative action]]
* [[political correctness]]<ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Free public [[education]] regardless of family income
* government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]<ref>See also [[Republican in name only]]</ref>
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|top|<center>One satirist's conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

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

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T23:32:27Z

GDewey:

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T23:11:39Z

GDewey:

Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:45:51Z

GDewey:

'''Heliocentrism''' is the view that the sun is at the center of the solar system or the universe or both. In ancient times there was no real distinction between the solar system and the universe. Heliocentrism was originally proposed by the ancient Greeks<ref>Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) proposed it, Archimedes discussed it, and the idea was well-known in Europe when [[Copernicus]] proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. [http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html]</ref>.

The heliocentric view of the universe became less and less popular during the course of the 1700s and 1800s. It was completely abandoned by the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in [[covariance|covariant]] equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:astronomy]]

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:37:23Z

GDewey: Ha!

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:36:04Z

GDewey:

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:34:35Z

GDewey:

Talk:Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:26:45Z

GDewey:

Heliocentrism

2008-01-31T22:13:10Z

GDewey:

'''Heliocentrism''' is the view that the sun is at the center of the solar system or the universe or both. Prior to modern times there was no real distinction between the center of the solar system and the center of the universe. Heliocentrism was originally proposed by the ancient Greeks<ref>Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) proposed it, Archimedes discussed it, and the idea was well-known in Europe when [[Copernicus]] proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. [http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html]</ref>.

The heliocentric view of the universe became less and less popular during the course of the 1700s and 1800s. It was completely abandoned by the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in [[covariance|covariant]] equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.
== References ==
<references/>
[[category:astronomy]]