Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Main Page/archive64

2011-07-01T21:05:51Z

GennaS: revert vandalism

==Main page==
When did the lower left main page become Conservative's scrapbook? Was there discussion about this? Is there a purpose? [[User:BenjaminG|BenjaminG]] 09:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:I was just about to say the same thing. The entire front page has a nice, professional look, until you scroll all the way down. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::Dear God, there is ''another'' section now? "Hitler's Evolutionary Racism"? Seriously? I already commented on the first section (see "Left column, bottom: Ole!" on this page), but this one easily tops it. And this box is now also at the top of the [[Theory of evolution]] article? *shakes head* Any sysop willing to revert this? It's so petty. So incredibly petty... --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 14:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why aren't the bitter fruits of the liberal worldview relevant to '''Conserv'''apedia's mainpage? Certainly the evolutionary worldview beloved by most liberals has had a [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|very negative effect on the world]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::...I wasn't aware that evolution is a "liberal worldview". Does that mean that people who accept evolution (or at least consider it to be a valid theory) are liberals? And I'm getting slight "Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust" vibes here - please tell me that I'm wrong. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Not only are you wrong. You're clueless. Of course the Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust. Read our article and hopefully the scales will fall from your eyes. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:17, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::So I'm both wrong and right at the same time? And I'm genuinely not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. This odd mix of quantum correctness, personal remarks and weird claim is jamming my Internet Sensors, so please clarify your position for confused cats in little boxes. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:26, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Keep it civil, AlicBG (I'm speaking as an administrator).
:::::::: I don't go along with some on this site who appear to see "liberal" and "conservative" in black-and-white only. People are more complex than that, and will be on one side in some areas and the other side in other areas. So I do reject the idea that only "liberals" accept evolution and all evolutionists are "liberals". However, having said that, I will say that evolution is pretty-well indispensable for "liberals", and most creationists would be conservatives. But many conservatives are also evolutionists.
:::::::: I'm not real clear on just what the objection to the Main Page is, but it ''seems'' as though linking Hitler with evolution is a significant part of the objection. And as far as that point is concerned, the link is a quite valid one.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Dirk, apparently you have not read the [[evolution]] article in regards to liberalism and the evolutionary position: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution_and_Liberalism Not very surprising. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::It should be easy to find. It's one of our most popular articles. almost as popular as the one on the F-18 Hornet...right, Conservative? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Conservative, by this reasoning, it's the American View that "it is possible to believe in both God and evolution" ("Sixty-seven percent say this is possible, while 29 percent disagree."). I think your "argument" (which is completely based on a single American survey) is very shaky. But nevermind that. Just give me a straight yes/no answer to this question: Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution caused the Holocaust? In other words - if Darwin hadn't published his theories and findings, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here (both from your posts and the way you try to link Hitler to evolution in what does look like blatant Guilt By Association on our ''Main Page''), and I don't like it. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Did the theory of evolution ''cause'' the holocaust? Who can say? If Darwin hadn't published his ideas, Wallace probably would have, and if he hadn't, someone else may have. So that's an unanswerable question. But if ''nobody'' had published similar ideas, would the holocaust have happened? I think that there is a good chance that it would not have. My two points for saying this are that (1) evolution had a major (negative) impact on society's thinking, and (2) Hitler was basing his ideas on evolution. In support of point (1) I will quote anti-racist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who said "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4659/105]. In support of point (2), Il will quote anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith: "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4140/]. There's much more to support the link that just those two quotes of course, but they encapsulate it pretty well. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::PJR, my objection isn't linking Hitler to evolution, it's using a large picture of Hitler as the very first picture, with more pictures of Hitler spread throughout, as if he were the most important person in evolution. I'm not saying don't mention Hitler, just that the previous picture of Darwin at the top of the page makes more sense in an encyclopedic article, not a picture of someone who misused evolution.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::But to answer your implied question: No, I did not read your Evolution article, just like I didn't read your Atheism article. Or your Homosexuality article. The reason is that these articles are less readable than a phone book. I tried to read them. I honestly tried. But before I even reached the ToC, my hand developed a life of its own and closed the tab, apparently in some sort of Fight-or-Flight attempt. I'll be nice and ignore the long stretches where you simply pile quotes upon quotes to erect some sort of point. But straight from the respective beginnings, it's clear that the articles are trying to push an agenda, so I might as well read a Chick Tract. Those are at least short, entertaining, and about as likely to give a fair overview about the subject as your articles. I come from Wikipedia, and while I don't like the way some people there dominate some articles (especially ones about liberal politicians), you and your articles make them look very tame. Perceived bias should not be countered by blatant over-the-top bias in the other direction. That is not the way of an encyclopedia. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 21:12, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It is not surprising that you would not read the articles since many liberals get upset when they read facts rather than liberal blather. Secondly, there is no point in answering your questions if you are allergic to facts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It is not surprising that people can't stand to read nothing but personal opinion and propaganda when they're trying to research something. The evolution page isn't an article, it's your own personal rant. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 22:11, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::::...are you implying that I'm a liberal, just because I think your "articles" are one-sided, blatant propaganda that hurt the image of this encyclopedia? Also, why didn't you answer the question? Please do. I need closure. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 21:57, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, I happen to think that if the Catholic Church (humans) was relatively mum during the Holocaust, and God certainly wasn't smiting anybody for it, then we can't really blame anybody except Darwinist liberals for it's continuation and length, now can we? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 00:22, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, yes we can. We can blame the genocidal fascists. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 00:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::No, no, they were liberals. They took away the people's guns and believed in evolution. Democratic platform, plain and simple. If they were fascists, they would be at the ''extreme '''right''''', which doesn't make any sense. Hitler was a liberal, and I don't want to hear any ''evidence'' to the contrary, because it's just as much of a waste of time as trying to find another Western country in the 1940s that treated a certain group as ethnically inferior. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 17:25, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Is that post a joke? {{unsigned|Ekeegan}}

:Kinda sorta. Normally I have no patience for people who try to parody the often-times good work done on here, but I was trying to make a point that this encyclopedia is getting associative osteoporosis. While the contrasts and points it used to make on it's many articles was once somewhat scholarly, even if it wasn't objective in the slightest, it's becoming a massive violator of Godwin's Law, and whatever similar "laws" dictate radical comparisons on the Internet. If this is supposed to be a tool for people to learn more and invest time and opinion into conservative discourse, then why are we wasting our time on these things on the MAIN PAGE? It's ridiculous and it doesn't reflect well on the state of the encyclopedia as a whole. Why is it only evolution? Why not just as easily say that Hitler considered Sparta a model fascist/militaristic society? Oh that's right, because nobody really sits around debating Sparta these days, so there's no way to accuse liberals of being Hitler's heirs. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 23:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:: The reason for linking Hitler with evolution is not because evolution is a topic and people want to make it look bad by linking Hitler to it, but because the connection is very real. See also my post above (search for "09:03, 13 September "). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::: So why not show the link between evolution and say, someone not considered a beacon of evil? Oh, right. I forgot how Christian mudslinging is. I forgot it's okay to bear false witness if it's a retroactive. I forgot that conservative means conserving everything but decency and reasoned arguments and brain cells, which last as long here as Pop Rocks in monsoon season. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 22:47, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: Why whitewash it? As for mudslinging, I think you provided a good example of it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Philip, have the points raised by OtherSide, DirkB, BrianH, RJJensen, HelpJazz, myself and others on this page made no impact on you at all? It is not a question of whitewashing; the fact is that the link between evolutionary science and Hitler is tenuous at best, and is a false application of evolutionary theory, if it can be seen as application of evolutionary theory at all. Evoking Hitler in reference to evolution is reducing the evolutionist-creationist debate to the level of lowest common denominator, or, as OtherSide says, mudslinging.

:::::To apply an analogy, the British serial killer [[Peter Sutcliffe]] claimed that the voice of God told him to murder prostitutes (although the Conservapedia article about him strangely omits to mention this). Does this mean that all believers in God are guilty of the same kind of psychotic delusions as Sutcliffe? Of course not! But associating evolutionism with Hitler is drawing exactly the same kind of straw man association to denigrate its proponents. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, associating two things is a matter of personal interpretation. If people come to that conclusion on their own, that's fine. Trying to sell a universally despised icon of evil with one side of a debatable issue which this site clearly opposes? Now, that's despicable. I think there's a serious brain disorder going on when someone's willing to do that just to tar-and-feather the other side of an issue which will most likely rage on after everyone who currently uses this site has died. It's STUPID. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The points raised by others have not convinced me. And I totally disagree that the link is "tenuous at best".
:::::::: The Bible teaches that murder is wrong, so Sutcliffe was clearly not hearing God. I agree with you that someone ''misusing'' an idea should not reflect badly on the idea. The question, though, is whether Hitler was ''misusing'' it. Various commentators have said that he was ''not'' misusing it. Did the quote from Sir Arthur Keith have no impact on you at all? It is not the same kind of association at all.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

===Back on track===
Ok let's get back onto the issue at hand here: the displaying of pictures with humorous (to some) captions on the main page.

My complaint has not to do with the articles themselves (as such complaints belong on the respective talk pages), but on the manner in which they are displayed on the main page. Please take a look at the rest of the main page and tell me if you truly, honestly think that it matches with a picture of Hitler linking to an article on evolution ([[Godwin's Law]] anyone?) and a picture of a dead and dying bull linking to an article on atheism (a) match the spirit of the main page, and (b) improve the overall look and message of the first page anybody sees when they come to this site.

I hope you can agree that, at least through asthetics, these two pictures do not belong. Now we have to ask: do links to the articles belong on the page? Conservative you said... well I don't know what you said but I assume that the basic argument boils down to "these are some of our most important issues and should be highlighted on the front page." You would be correct in that assessment, EXCEPT for the fact that these two articles are not good examples of how our encyclopedia is supposed to work. Conservapedia was built on the principle of collaberation between conservatives (and non-conservatives who know how to behave themselves) in order to become better than any individual could do. So we should exemplify on our main page articles which show this quality; [[atheism]] and [[evolution]], frankly, do not. They are locked articles, they have largely one contributer (Conservative), and little, if any, community input ever makes it onto the page. So I ask you another question: do you truly, honestly, think that linking to those two articles showcase what Conservapedia is all about?

Please note that I did not discuss the content or the quality of the articles, only the manner in which they are presented on the main page and the manner in which they were created. Arguments about whether or not they are good articles belong on the respective talk pages. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:HelpJazz, while the picture of the bull was humorous, Hitler is a perfect posterboy for the evolutionary position. If you haven't had a chance to see the movie Expelled I would suggest doing so. The evolutionary position is tied to countless human lives being lost. Also, Hitler was a unreasonable man. I also believe the main page piece highlights the racism of Darwin and a great deal of evolutionists throughout history. As Gould stated, Darwinism increased racism by an order(s) of magnitude. (can't recall exact quote). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:02, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: I wish I ''could'' see ''Expelled'', but it hasn't been released in Oz yet. I hear the DVD is due out next month, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The "exact quote" is in a post of mine above (search for "09:03, 13 September"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::For Hitler to be the poster boy for evolution, I suppose that means most people who believe in evolution are racist? Because that is what people are led to believe by reading that. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 23:02, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Evolution is a racist concept (e.g. some are more evolved than others). That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in evolution is necessarily a racist, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Evolution is not a "racist concept". It makes no claims about any species (let alone race) being "more evolved". For you to say so shows me that you know less about evolution than I thought you did (I had little hope for Conservative to understand anything about this, but I had higher hopes for you, Philip). Furthermore, Hitler is a decidedly poor choice for a demonstration on the effects of evolution because (assuming he was using "survival of the fittest" as justification for the Holocaust) he got it completely wrong. You might as well say he is the poster boy for the effects of Christianity, because he was a proclaimed Christian, but obviously missed the point of the religion entirely. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean "find a group you think might be inferior and kill them all" any more than "you shall have no gods before me" means "kill everyone who worships another god". Evolutionarily speaking the Jews are no different from anyone else, so if Hitler were trying to put Darwinian theory into practice, he failed miserably. Natural selection deals with how a species has adapted to its natural environment. An atmosphere of Zyklon B is not a natural environment anywhere. If Hitler were doing anything approaching a Darwinian experiment, he would have put both Jews and the "master race" in gas chambers believing that Germans would survive based on their natural superiority. He didn't. Like many before him (long before Darwin was born) he found a group he had an irrational hatred for (a hatred he rationalized) and killed them en masse. That he did so so efficiently is a result of technology, not ideology. Evolution is not even a "speciesist" concept (unlike Christianity) let alone a racist one. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: If life has gone through various evolutionary stages from the first "simple" cell to the variety of life we have today, then it's blatantly obvious that some creatures ''are'' "more evolved" than others. Denying it is denying evolution. And that's ignoring Gould's comment above, and Darwin's view that black people were the missing link.
::::: Hitler was not a Christian (despite what he might have claimed for political purposes). He had plans to eliminate Christianity because he knew that Christianity would be his biggest obstacle. What is a "Darwinian experiment"? Certainly he was not doing a ''scientific'' experiment, but then Darwinism/evolution is not science, so that point fails.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::If you mean "more evolved" to mean "has had more mutations" then you're right. If you mean it as a judgment that something is better, than that is not true. By the first definition, a man born with a foot growing out of his forehead is "more evolved" than the rest of us. That this foot would be a huge hindrance and give him no advantages shows that calling something "more evolved" is meaningless. Species adapt to their environment or they do not. All races of human have evolved the same, and have adapted well. As for Gould's comment, it is irrelevant. It is not surprising that racists have misunderstood evolution and/or twisted it to their own purpose. Racists have a history of doing that. You might as well say after the rise of Christianity the persecution of pagans increased dramatically. Charlemagne slew thousands in the name of Christ. That doesn't mean Christianity condones murder.
::::::You can argue all day about whether Hitler was a true Christian. We all agree that what he did was not an act in line with Christianity. But it was also not in line with evolutionary theory.
::::::A Darwinian experiment would be an experiment conducted along the lines of the theories of Darwin, probably to test a hypothesis (his main hypothesis being, I suppose, that Germans were superior to Jews). The hypothetical experiment I mentioned is not a great one, but it at least would have had something to do with the concept of survival of the fittest. Hitler thinks Germans are biologically superior, so he does an experiment to see who can survive in a highly contrary environment: an atmosphere with significant amounts of Zyklon B. If the Germans survive and the Jews die, he can make the claim that Germans are better adapted in at least this one way, then he goes on to kill the Jews so only people who are resistant to Zyklon B survive. Therefore, should the Earth's atmosphere ever suddenly be composed of Zyklon B, the human race would survive. It's a ridiculous notion, and certainly not his aim, but that at least ''that'' would have ''some'' connection to Darwinism, unlike his actual idea: "I think Germans are superior to Jews because I'm a German and I hate Jews, therefore I will kill all Jews". Nothing Darwinian about that. "I'm better than them so I'll kill them" is an idea about as old as humanity itself.
::::::Fianlly, about Darwin thinking black people were the missing link, what are you talking about? How can humans be the missing link between humans and another species? Also let us not forget that the science (and yes, I do mean science) of evolution has changed over the years, just as all sciences have. So a claim made by Darwin is not always relevant to evolution as it is understood today. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 12:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You draw a simplistic contrast between "more mutations" and "better". "Better" is a subjective opinion, so I'm not talking about that, yet the difference between bacteria and humans, for example, is not simply "more mutations". Clearly humans have a lot more genetic information than bacteria.
::::::: "''All races of human have evolved the same, and have adapted well''": That is begging the question. Yes, all "races" are effectively the same, but is that due to evolution? Evolution would not predict that separate evolutionary lineages would evolve the same, and clearly early evolutionists didn't expect that people would have evolved the same. (See also [[race]] and its footnote 1.) The fact that they are the same does not support that evolution would evolve them the same; rather it supports the idea that they haven't evolved.
::::::: "''It is not surprising that racists have misunderstood evolution and/or twisted it to their own purpose.''": So I guess Darwin misunderstood evolution. Yeah, that makes sense.
::::::: "''But it was also not in line with evolutionary theory.''": I maintain that it is.
::::::: Your "Darwinian experiment" is a ''scientific'' experiment that tests whether Germans are better than Jews at resisting the effects of Zyklon B. It doesn't actually test for anything to do with evolution. How would evolution make Germans more resistant to a chemical that they had never been exposed to?
::::::: Evolution did not ''make'' Hitler think Germans to be superior, nor did it ''make'' him kill the Jews. But the racism of evolution provided the justification for him doing so.
::::::: "''How can humans be the missing link between humans and another species?''": By considering them to not be fully human.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Are you arguing that Darwin was a racist or that evolution is a racist concept? I won't argue against the first point, mostly because it's irrelevant (though I would like to know where Darwin says that black people aren't human). That ignores the fact that just about everyone in the 19th century was a racist. I notice the obvious racism of Washington, Jefferson, and every other founding father is ignored on this site. Even those whites of that era who thought black people deserved rights rarely if ever though they were actually equal to whites. That concept is much older than evolutionary theory. If you want to argue that evolution is a "racist" concept you will have to do better than "racists cite it" (which is useless and furthermore ignores the fact that the biggest racist organization in this country, the KKK, rejects evolution) "Darwin was racist" or it postulates that some races are more evolved than others, which it doesn't. "More evolved" is a meaningless concept anyway. Humans are more complex than bacteria, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. Bacteria are the most successful life forms on the planet. Furthermore, if you want to make labels about evolution as it is understood today, it is best not to only rely on the works of Darwin. There has been scientific progress in the past 150 years, you know.
::::::::Back to Hitler. He may have cited evolution to justify what he did, but he did so appallingly poorly. I believe he also used Christianity to justify his murders (and if he didn't, there are plenty throughout history who have). So why is evolution a murderous, racist, evil concept but Christianity not, when both have been misused to justify atrocities? Again, you nitpick the details of my theoretical experiment (that its unlikely for anyone to be immune to a chemical they never encountered is neither here nor there), the point is there is no legitimate evolutionary theory behind anything Hitler did. He decided Jews were inferior (based on his personal feelings, not anything remotely scientific) so he tried to kill them all (nothing new there, really). If asked why, one of the answers he may give is "evolution!" It's always nice to be able to cite science to justify what you do because it sounds good, and few people understand it enough to know you're doing it entirely wrong. You can argue that his ideas of Germans only breeding with Germans to maintain a "pure" race has some connection to evolution, but selective breeding goes back to prehistoric times. You still have not cited anything connecting Hitler with legitimate evolutionary theory other than that Hitler's say-so. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Hitler was not an honest person. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::You completely ignored what I said in my post. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:16, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ian, Hitler was unreasonable man and therefore he is the perfect posterboy for the evolutionary position. I see no reason to believe in the evolutionary position [[evolution|given the lack of any real fossil evidence]]. In short, the burden of proof always rest on the claimant or claimants and the evolutionists certainly look foolish claiming there is overwhelming evidence to support the evolutionary position [[evolution|given the poverty of the fossil record to support their contention]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Conservative, Darwin is the most widely used and recognized person when it comes to evolution. He IS the posterboy for evolution.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::For Hitler to be a "posterboy" for the evolutionary position, you would need to provide an example of evolutionists using him as a posterboy, & I don't think you can produce such an example. Otherwise, I think what you mean is that he is the perfect [[straw man]] for the evolutionary position - I.E. using him as a hate figure to demonise an opposing view - and this is not the same thing.
::::Social Darwinism (like that of Hitler) derives from Darwin's theories regarding survival of the fittest, but is not directly connected with Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species. We do not even know if hitler believed in the evolution of the species, simply because he did not comment on it. He was much more interested in racial theory than he was in the natural world. Using Hitler as an evolutionary "posterboy" completely misrepresents evolutionary theory. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: Conservative actually said (although the wording was not the best) that "Hitler is a perfect posterboy for the evolutionary ''position''" (my emphasis). I think he meant that Hitler is the perfect posterboy for ''the effects that evolution has had on society'', not for evolution itself.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, the aspect of Darwinism which Hitler drew on was natural selection (the survival of the fittest). This particular theory of Darwin's is almost universally accepted, even by creationists (the [[natural selection]] article confirms this). Hitler falsely applied the survival of the fittest principal to races and nations, but he was not applying an ''evolutioniary'' position, since it possible to accept natural selection as a general principle without necessarily accepting the theory of evolution. In fact, Hitler's ideas were at odds with evolutionary theory, since he believed in eliminating what he considered to be inferior races and founding a homogenous "master race", whereas evolutionism emphasises ''diversity'' of species and characteristics as a result of evolution. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: In the evolutionary story, natural selection selects for improvements provided by mutations. In the creationary view, natural selection removes defects and selects from ''existing'' information. Hitler thought that the Aryans were more evolved and that he should eliminate the less evolved (inferior). Evolution is about advance, not just diversity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Of course evolution is about advance as well as diversity, but the two things go together - the theory is that the vast array of plants and creatures we see today evolved from a single starting point over millions of years. This diversity has resulted from organisms procreating with other organisms having similar but slightly differing characteristics. The stronger characteristics survive and over time these minor differences diverge into different species. Hitler's ideas run counter to this, since, in ''Mein Kampf'' (chapter XI, where the quote in the caption was lifted from), he claimed that it was "unnatural" for this kind of interbreeding (which is the driving force of evolution) to occur, that creatures only procreate with those of identical characteristics, and especially that interracial procreation among humans is similarly "unnatural". This is a gross misapplication of Darwinism and wholly unrepresentative of evolutionary science. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 08:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Evolution isn't supposed to be the result of sexual reproduction, as that only allows for ''existing'' genetic information to be passed on. Rather, evolution is supposed to be the result of mutations, which supposedly introduce ''new'' genetic information. It is you who is claiming something "unrepresentative of evolutionary" claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::"Evolution" was one of the most widely used terms in the world around 1900, and it meant many different things --especially about technology and human history--all far outside of biology. Those other meanings have very little to do with the Bible or conservatism, and should not be mixed up with Darwinian evolution of species. In particular, "social darwinism" is not at all incompatible with the Bible, which is full of stories of bloody conquests of one nation or tribe over another. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: "Evolution" does have legitimate meanings, but it also has naturalistic meaning outside of biology, such as the evolution of the stars. And social Darwinism is not compatible with the Bible, a fair bit of which is simply recording ''history'', often without endorsing it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok my "back on track" thread is now off track again. I give up. Conservative: keep your pictures and links to non-representative, pet articles. It's probably better that newcomers to the site learn quickly that there are only certain articles they are allowed to edit. It will solve some of the "talk, talk, talk" problem that we keep facing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:HelpJazz, that's a very negative remark to make and one that maligns Conservapedia. This site is open to debate and discussion (as long as the discussion is not deliberately contrived to cause obstruction and damage), and the implication that censorship of virews takes place is completely unjustified. Just because you haven't seen things go the way you wanted on this occassion is no excuse for pseudo-[[Partian shot]]s which sound suspiciously like chucking teddy out of the pram. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Anglican church on evolution ==
The church of England has publicly come out [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4744194.ece supporting evolution] to avoid negative perception of Christianity worldwide resulting from "noisy creationists" especially in United states. Do you think it should make to the front page?--[[User:DavidN|DavidN]] 17:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:We should also include this quote: "''Tahir Alam, of the Muslim Council of Britain, expressed concern that there was a rising trend of intolerance towards religious beliefs and said: “Secular atheism is getting very dogmatic."''
:: I've added an item about it. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Here's a [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html rant] by the COE Director of Mission and Public Affairs. Why is the COE promoting atheistic ideas? [[User:Shamas|Shamas]] 10:44, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Hurricane Ike==
I have been watching the images on TV and my thoughts go out all in South Texas. If any on here (or their families) are caught up in it, I hope all are safe. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 13:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's "Still" ad makes fun of McCain's inability to send email ==

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vyqf2NG7jA

Unfortunately for Obama, the reason McCain can't send email is because the injuries he suffered while a prisoner of war make it very painful for him to type. McCain does enjoy email, however, and has his wife type for him:

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html

<blockquote>
In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
</blockquote>

[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:The idea that McCain can't use email or the Internet because he suffered grievous injuries while a POW is not supported by the facts. While I am not belittling his pain and suffering at the hands of his Vietnamese torturers, his injuries upon release were not severe enough to prevent him from recovering physically and passing the Class I Flight Physical required for his naval flying career. The Forbes reference didn't quote McCain as saying his wartime injuries prevented him from using a keyboard, he admitted to being 'laborious', while Richard Rapaport at Forbes seemed to invent the POW excuse.

:In this NY Times article McCain states[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin#]; "I don't e-mail. I've never felt the particular need to e-mail." “They go on for me,” he said. “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”

:Based on what McCain has admitted, Obama's accusation is not inaccurate, at least for now. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:41, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== McCain's chances improved over the week ==

According to the betting market, [[User:Ferret/ElectionOdds|McCain's chances of winning the election]] improved significantly during the past week, with Obama's probability sliding from 73% in July to 57% now. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 19:55, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==There is a hateful and slanderous site mocking this site's good name.==
I have come to the unfortunate discovery of an evil and possible satanist encyclopedia mocking this site. I advise you to read at your own risk. <nowiki>http://devil.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia</nowiki> I believe it is time for action for this libel! I was hoping you editors could help. --[[User:JesusIsMyFriend|JesusIsMyFriend]] 09:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Please don't link to sites that have inappropriate content, and put new posts at the bottom as I've moved it for your convenience. I no-wiki'd your link. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:That's horrible. I agree that no one should read that. The site seems to have only one author, and hopefully no one else finds it! I suggest emailing the FBI about this, and I will write a letter of support if you decide to do that. Praise jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 11:40, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, guys. Looks like a parody of the parodies and critics. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::If you want to address a petty, insular, insignificant and completely intangible "threat" to any form of conservatism, I suggest you post it in the Breaking News section. I'm sure it will find a nice home among its brethren. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Socialist" Britain ==

I completely agree with the news article about adoption in Britain, but can you ''please'' stop calling Britain a socialist state? Allow me to give a brief history of the Labour Party. It was founded as a Marxist-Socialist Party with strong trade union links. It flirted with government briefly in the inter-war period before its first real government in 1945 under Clement Attlee. The Attlee government ''could'' be considered socialist, but it was a failure; Labour would not regain office until 1964 under Harold Wilson. By this point, Labour had hard-line Marxist elements, but, on balance, Labour could not be considered socialist. Then, it would retake power in 1974, with pretty much the same policies. Then, we had a Conservative government for 18 years, in which most of Attlee's enduring socialism was swept away by the New Right, under Margaret Thatcher.
In 1992, everybody predicted a Labour victory, and a Prime Minister Neil Kinnock. Prime Minister John Major was unpopular, but Labour was not seen as electable; they were still advocating high taxes for the middle classes and maintained union links. Socialism in Britain was finished, and Neil Kinnock's electoral defeat showed this very clearly.

Then, John Smith took power, swiftly followed by Tony Blair. They reformed the party, brought it closer to the centre and abandoned the enduring socialist policy of nationisation (Clause IV). This time, it won power, in the Labour government that is with us today. It had some concessions to its socialist origins (John Prescott, for one) but it was not a socialist party any more. The Labour party under Blair could be considered social democratic, but even this is a stretch. Labour is no longer socialist, and Britain is certainly not socialist.
I'll concede that the UK is further to the left than the United States (something I am pleased with) but to call it a socialist state is entirely incorrect.

If you could stop calling it "socialism" in future news posts, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

[[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 11:43, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Under the leftist Gordon Brown, redistributive tax and spend policies have reached an unprecedented height, and the socialist government has renationalised the railway infrastructure and has recently nationalised a major bank. It has pushed through legislation attacking the family as the base unit of society, and has introduced a multiplicity of laws infringing on the personal freedoms of the British peoples. Unsocialist? I don't think so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::Britain's economy is current under pressure, explaining the redistributive tax and the nationisation of the banks. What legislation attacks family, and how is this socialist? I presume you mean things like allowing homosexual couples to adopt; I agree, they're not conservative (small "c"), but that doesn't make them socialist. You have to remember, Britain is a more liberal society than the US. Even the Conservative party (capital "C") is not opposed to these measures. The high-profile Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson has made appearances at gay-pride marches. By all means, call Britain liberal, but don't call it socialist.
[[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 12:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm tempted to think of another government with huge spending policies (record debts and deficits) which has recently nationalized two major mortgage brokers. In late 2001 it also passed laws infringing on the personal freedoms of its peoples. Is that socialist? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 12:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that was a quick transition from being tempted to think about it to naming facts! Good progress BrianH. Good point, too. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 11:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gaoling vs. Jailing ==

If you're going to use the arhaic spelling of jailing, then it's gayoling not gaoling. gaol = the noun jail, to gayole = the verb. Also FYI in the UK jail is used almost universally and I thought that it was the same ase in the US [[User:Chappers|Chappers]] 13:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

==Natural fertility treatment more effective than IVF==

A study has shown that natural fertility treatment is more effective than IVF. IVF often results in discarding of surplus human embryos and can result in multiple births. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4749677.ece

==Expanding Evolution section on bottom-left of Main Page==

It's not a big deal, but I've noticed that the bottom-left section of the Main Page is starting to look like a proxy for the Evolution article itself. The Main page has an article of the week, Article of the Year, Guest World treasure, etc. Shouldn't there be some sort of comparable Section heading that these belong under? Right now it just looks like they're being placed there with no rhyme or reason. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Formerly there was just blank space and it has been that way for a long time. Now the space is being utilized to spotlight the evil nature of one of the common tenets of liberalism which is fitting for an encyclopedia called '''Conserv'''apedia. (Please see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution_and_Liberalism ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Now there's blank space on the right side of the screen. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The other problem, of course, is that the new additions make the site look stupid. The attempt to link Hitler to the theory of evolution is misguided and a bit pathetic. The quote itself amply demonstrates that Hitler had little understanding of the theory. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary higher stage". Evolution is not a progression from a lower level to a higher level. It is merely change and selection. There is no lower and higher stage of being. I suggest that you remove these recent additions. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 18:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The "attempt" to link Hitler to evolution is not misguided at all. The link is very real. Evolution is the story of how life started with a "simple" single-celled creature and from that developed greater and greater complexity. That sounds very much like a "progression from a lower level to a higher level" to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::That is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Furthermore, even if true, what does progression to a "higher level" have to do with the murder of 6 million Jews? That has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If Hitler thought Germans were "more evolved" than Jews, that just goes to show how he completely misunderstood evolution; any actual scientist can clearly demonstrate what a false premise that is. "I'm better than you so I'm going to hurt you" is not an evolutionary concept; it goes back to the earliest human interactions. [[User:TomG|TomG]] 09:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "''...you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.''": Yet you don't even attempt to demonstrate that claim.
:::::: "''...what does progression to a "higher level" have to do with the murder of 6 million Jews?''": Hitler considered the Jews at a "lower level". Many scientists agreed with the principle that ''biology'' (not evolution) has since shown to be a "false premise". That science (biology) has since shown that evolution was wrong on this does not mean that evolution didn't say that.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::When you talk of "higher" and "lower" life forms you are misrepresenting evolution. I find it odd that the people who say evolution is bad because it says humans are no better than dogs are the same ones who say it promotes the idea that one race is superior to another.
:::::::Hitler considered Jews a "lower level", sure, but he had no evolutionary basis for that, he simply said he was more evolved than them. That's ''mis''using evolution, and making it an excuse. No one denies that some bad things have been done in the name of evolution, but it doesn't seem that's what you're arguing. Many bad things have been done in the name of every religion on earth, that doesn't mean each religion condones such actions. If you can find an actual evolutionary biologist (and if you can accept that the term is not an oxymoron) who makes the claim that Jews are a less evolved group/race/breed/species/whatever, then you can try to blame him for some of Hitler's actions, if you like, but the truth is that Hitler hated Jews, probably for a variety of reasons. I don't know if the reasons he commonly stated, or if he just knew they were the ones he could sell most easily (saying they were communists who stole the nation's money when the country was in a deep depression is a useful propaganda tactic), but he did hate them, and would have killed them with or without a contrived evolution excuse. Trying to show evolution is a bad thing by tying it to Hitler is actually counterproductive; it merely makes clear the need for comprehensive education so people will be sure to learn what bunk Hitler's "evolution" statements are. [[User:TomG|TomG]] 11:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: No, I'm not misrepresenting evolution. I've already posted a quote from Sir Arthur Keith on this page that addresses this issue. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5085 this article], which is worth reading in itself, is this quote from anti-creationist Peter Quinn:
{{QuoteBox|Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” he predicts. “At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”}}
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: ''"Evolution is the story of how life started with a "simple" single-celled creature and from that developed greater and greater complexity. That sounds very much like a "progression from a lower level to a higher level" to me."''
::::::::: Well, maybe, if you want to define 'lower' and 'higher' like that. But if you did, and then you said that humans should destroy all bacteria because they were a 'lower' life-form, would that be correct application of evolutionary theory? No. It would be a misunderstanding because 'lower' does mean 'inferior' in this context - we've just defined it as 'less complex'.
::::::::: Your Arthur Keith quote that you mention does not address the issue, it merely states that Hitler believed in evolution and attempted to apply it to society, which no-one has tried to deny because it isn't particularly pertinent to a discussion of how valid his interpretation of evolution was. Also whether Darwin was or was not a racist doesn't seem very important considering the prevalence of racism in the 19th Century (as pointed out earlier).
::::::::: ''"Hitler considered the Jews at a "lower level". Many scientists agreed with the principle that ''biology'' (not evolution) has since shown to be a "false premise". That science (biology) has since shown that evolution was wrong on this does not mean that evolution didn't say that."''
::::::::: Evolution certainly does not say that Jews are at a 'lower level' or anything of the sort, which is clearly what you are implying here. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) "''But if you did, and then you said that humans should destroy all bacteria because they were a 'lower' life-form, would that be correct application of evolutionary theory?''": Yes, I think so. Of course it's not a good thing to do, because God created bacteria for a purpose, but according to the evolutionary view, why not? Okay, perhaps that's going a ''little'' too far; bacteria have, after all, supposedly survived this long, so they must have something going for them. But the point is that evolution is supposed to get rid of the ''less-fit'', which means that there ''must be'' living things that ''are'' less fit, that need to be eliminated. As to whether particular living things are less fit than particular other living things is a separate question, which I'll address below regarding the Jews.

Sir Arthur Keith did not say that Hitler "sought to make the practice of Germany conform to ''his view of'' the theory of evolution". There's no hint there that Keith thought that Hitler was misapplying it. And before the horrors of the holocaust became known, many other scientists, including in America, ''supported'' Hitler's views.

As for racism being common, see the quote from Gould just above that from Keith. Evolution strengthened evolutionary views.

No, evolution generally does not name ''which'' living things are inferior to others, and therefore it doesn't say that the Jews are at a lower level, but Darwin obviously thought so, as can be seen by a quote in my post on this page dated 05:51, 20 September. Perhaps Hitler was going a little beyond evolution to classify the Jews as inferior, but he was being entirely consistent with many other people, including evolutionary scientists, in considering some "races" superior to others. See footnote 1 of the article on [[race]].

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:You keep coming back to a few quotes by Darwin to show he was a racist, therefore evolution is a racist concept. It's much like saying Lutheranism is anti-semitic because Luther was an anti-Semite. The idea that some races are "superior" was scientifically debunked long ago. Yes, some people still adhere to this, and they are called racists. And they are as often as not Christians, or at least claim to be. You have demonstrated nothing racist about the concept of evolution itself. You also miss the mark when try to malign various scientists by saying they supported Hitler before they found out about the Holocaust. But it's the Holocaust that is being discussed. You can't say Hitler had a valid view according to scientists if they supported him ''before'' they knew what his big "evolutionary plan" was. But you are the most wrong when you assert that evolution dictates that humans should destroy all bacteria. Why? Because it's less complex? So humans should destroy all life that is less complex than we are? That is, arguably, every living on earth. You seem to be confusing natural selection with artificial selection, among other misunderstandings. [[User:SamN|SamN]] 09:16, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is false to say that I keep coming back to a few quotes by Darwin. I've offered quotes by Darwin, Gould, Keith, and George William Hunter, at least. How many more do you need? Yes, the idea that some races are superior was debunked by science, but that doesn't mean that evolution is not racist. After all, I say that science has also debunked evolution! And I disagree that I've demonstrated nothing racist about evolution. No, it's not the holocaust being discussed. It's Hitler's ideas that led to the holocaust that are being discussed. That the scientists didn't realise how far he would take his ideas doesn't mean that they didn't support the basic idea of evolutionary racism. Or eugenics, to be precise.
:: My point about the bacteria was that they should be destroyed if they are "less fit", because that's what evolution does. That it sounds crazy (and it is crazy) is simply because ''evolution'' is crazy. True, I'm conflating natural selection with artificial selection, but what's the real difference? After all, "artificial selection" is simply humans doing what they can to kill off the less fit, and if humans are just a part of nature, then surely "artificial selection" is just a subset of "natural selection"!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I will say this and then I plan on removing myself from this argument altogether. Mr. Rayment, you keep referring to the purpose of evolution. You speak as though evolution were an assembly line constantly trying to create the "perfect" being. This is not how it works. Evolution is simply the process through which organisms survive. It would be ridiculous for nature (or humans) to kill off bacteria because it's less fit. In fact, bacteria is one of the essential components of life today. Bacteria, in various forms decompose wastes, aid in digestion, and strengthen our immune systems through contact (a controversial theory, but one that I think has some merit). The idea that anything is "less fit" and needs to be killed off is a complete mischaracterization of what evolution stands for. Evolution and survival of the fittest does not mean that everything that isn't perfect needs to be killed, it simply states that more desirable traits are passed on, while less desirable traits are eliminated. A great example of this is Hemophilia(sp?) before the days of intervention by medicine, a person struck with this had little chance to survive, as they would likely pass on before they were able to successfully reproduce. These days, thanks to modern medicine, they survive and the trait continues. Evolution does not say that we should kill or forcibly sterilize all hemophiliacs to "cleanse" the gene pool, but that without scientific intervention, the trait would not have survived as long as it has. (of course the fact that Hemophilia is carried by females and can only be contracted by males is a different story entirely) [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Philip, a few things. I'll number them so it's easy to respond.
:::: '''1)''' To quote you earlier on this page:
:::: ''"In the evolutionary story, natural selection selects for improvements provided by mutations. In the creationary view, natural selection removes defects and selects from existing information."''
:::: In other words, for you the key difference between natural selection and evolution is the presence of mutations. However mutations have nothing to do with racism and therefore you seem to be objecting to the racism of something that creationists actually accept - natural selection. This is not a logical fallacy but I want to make sure that this is indeed your position.
:::: '''2)''' Evolution (or natural selection) does not insist that all well-adapted creatures should go around destroying the others. It is to do with the observation that well-adapted organisms ('superior' ones, if you like) have greater survival chances than less well-adapted organisms. There is nothing prescriptive about it.
:::: ''"...the point is that evolution is supposed to get rid of the less-fit, which means that there must be living things that are less fit, that need to be eliminated."''
:::: They do not ''need'' to be eliminated, there is no ''desire'' for elimination - selective pressures on biological environments result in some organisms being more successful than others, and some of the less successful ones become extinct. That is the sad, amoral reality. It is not something evolutionary theory demands, it is something it describes.
:::: '''3)''' You have mentioned several times the racism or implied racism of evolutionary scientists and supporters of evolution. The veracity of this claim is completely irrelevant to what the theory itself is concerned with. Perhaps Darwin was a racist - this does not make evolution a racist theory. SamN's point that it's like saying Lutheranism is anti-Semitic because of Luther's anti-Semitism is an excellent analogy, and one you did not really address.
:::: ''"Perhaps Hitler was going a little beyond evolution to classify the Jews as inferior, but he was being entirely consistent with many other people, including evolutionary scientists, in considering some "races" superior to others."''
:::: No doubt he was being consistent with the views of a number of bakers, accountants, and (for that matter) Christians as well, but the fact is that you have yet to demonstrate why evolution is a racist theory (or how any scientific theory can be inherently racist) and no number of racist quotes from Darwin or anybody else will change this.
:::: --[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 15:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I've taken a while to respond to these last two posts, because I've been writing a separate page to explain my point of view on this issue. So please see [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution]]. For the rest of this post, I'll answer points that are not covered by that page.

I agree that it would be ridiculous for bacteria to be killed off. But I agree because I ''don't'' believe in evolution; because I believe that God created bacteria for a purpose, and because ''biology'' (not evolution) shows that they are very useful. None of this, however, means that ''evolution'' says that they shouldn't be killed off. Okay, evolution doesn't actually say that bacteria ''should'' be killed off, any more than it says that Jews should be killed off. But what it ''does'' say is that if a "more fit" species (e.g. man) kills off a "less fit" species (bacteria) (and if man succeeds, it means that man ''is'' "more fit"), then that is entirely okay within the evolutionary viewpoint. Similarly, if a "more fit" "race" (Aryans) kills off a "less fit" race (Jews) (and if they succeed, it means that the Aryans ''are'' "more fit"), then that is entirely okay within the evolutionary viewpoint. The fact that is is ''not'' okay is really an argument that evolution is wrong.

Evolution ''does'', to some extent at least, ''require'' that the less fit be killed off. If some members of a given population acquire some new characteristic, the only way for this characteristic to be ''selected'' is for the ones without the characteristic to be ''deselected'', or killed off. If the ones without the characteristic are not eliminated, then you retain the ''less fit'' version and there is no evolution. "Survival of the fittest" means that the ''less fit do not survive''. If they do, then you don't have evolution.

For creationists, natural selection is a ''conservative'' process (not to be confused with "conservative" as an ideology), because it ''conserves'' the gene pool by eliminating those that have sufficiently-bad defects. It puts a brake on the gene pool going downhill. For evolutionists, natural selection is an ''innovative'' process, whereby ''new information'' is added to the gene pool (via mutations providing the new information and natural selection selecting those mutations). It causes the gene poole to go uphill. So the key difference is not the presence of mutations, but the ''direction'' of genetic change.

I didn't respond to the case of Lutheranism because it was essentially correct. That is, to the extent that Lutheranism is something distinct from Christianity. It is really a branch of Christianity, and Christianity is not inherently anti-Semitic, so it is quite understandable that Lutheranism would reform aspects of itself that were at odds with Christianity, but to the extent that it doesn't, the charge would be applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:This is section is getting a bit long... anywhere else we can move it to? Anyway, Sticking strictly to the thread I started, there is still the mistaken conclusion that Evolution says that anything being "killed off" by another entity is ok. Evolution simply states that organisms that cannot adapt quickly to new environments ''will'' be killed off. That doesn't mean it's ok, nor does it mean it's bad. Evolution, for the most part, doesn't care. Evolution states that, without interference, organisms will constantly be forced to adapt changes to their environment or they will be killed, which ultimately creates changes in species. For example, purely hypothetical, if a "prey" type animal, say a rabbit, delevoped some new trait that protected it from carnivores, such as invisability (again, this is obviously a hypthetical, intentionally improbable) the next link in the food chain (be they Owls or Coyotes or Wolves or whathaveyou) have to find some way to adapt to that. Most likely, they would turn their attention to the rabbits without this particular trait. Eventually, all non invisable rabbits would be killed off, simply because they couldn't adapt. There is a radical difference from a natuarlly occurring mutation leading to a drastic change in the base traits of a species and artificially "aiding" evolution by killing people.

:I would also like to point out that, under your model of creationist/evolutionist natural selection, Hitler was following the creationist model by exterminating the Jewish people and trying to stop the gene pool from going "downhill." If he was an evolutionist, he would have attempted to genetically alter the German people to give them some kind of superpowered advantage. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

:: If evolution "doesn't care", then it must be okay! And that's one of the points I made on my [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution|evolution]] page—that evolution means that ''there are no restrictions'' on this sort of thing. If a child asks his father if he can go fishing, and his father says that he doesn't care, that is tacitly saying that it's okay. Conversely, even if Hitler was trying to stop the gene pool going downhill (which is not the way he looked at it), then it is still contrary to the creationary model because that creationary model includes the idea that ''murder is wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

:::Two major issues with this. One, yes, a ''human'' father say I don't care is saying yes. However, evolution is not a human being capable of making distinctions and judgments. Evolution is a force that has no emotional stake in the outcome. Also, you are speaking in circles. You claim that creationists think the gene pool needs to be protected (my word) and prevented from sliding downhill. The logical extension of that is "if we can, we should intervene and prevent the pool from declining," but then you say that it's not creationist to do it because we teach that murder is wrong (although that certainly gets ignored a lot). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I think Nate hits the nail right on the head here. Evolution is not a concious being that makes judgments. Saying it is "okay" with the idea of killing off species is like saying gravity is okay with the idea of throwing people over tall cliffs. All it says if that you do, they will fall (and likely die). For another example of how evolution works, consider what would happen if the earth were to suddenly be submerged in water. Humans would not last very long, as they are not adapted to this environment. Sure, a number could live on boats for a while, but life would become so difficult that many would die off, and the boats would eventually rot and decay. So we have an environment that humans are not well adapted to, and not fit to survive in. Does that mean it would be "okay" to go around drowning people now? Or that "evolution says" we should? Does this mean humans are "less evolved" than fish? [[User:Reynard|Reynard]] 13:06, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: I've already answered those main points made by NateE and Reynard, [[user:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution|here]].
:::: As far as supposedly "speaking in circles", no I'm not. Killing off those with genetic defects is not the only way to stop things going downhill. Another way is fixing the defects. That may not be something we are capable of yet, but in principle it's a way of stopping things going downhill that doesn't involve murder.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please remove baseless "Obama is muslim" article from the Main Page ==

Or else defend it on the debate page [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]] [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:49, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
: But just last week Obama let it slip and essentially admitted he is a Muslim! What's there to defend? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Please see the debate page. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Time to open up the Evolution article ==

When posts such as [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution#Problems_with_the_article._.28Part_I.29|this]] and [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution#Problems_with_the_Article_.28Part_II.29|this]] go largely unanswered and ignored it is time for a rethink.

The theory of evolution article has been locked for something like 18 months and has been overwhelmingly edited by a single editor. Is this a wiki or a blog? It is time to open the article up to other editors who have an interest in the topic. A failure to do so gives the impression that the arguments pushed by that single editor just cannot stand up to scrutiny by others and only remain because the page is locked to anyone who has a clue. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 18:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see what the problem is. You can "answer" those posts you link to on the talk page. If any meaningful change suggestions come out of a discussion I am sure a sysop will be happy to modify the page itself. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:17, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Um, the problem is that I have no wish to answer those posts (I'm not sure what your inverted commas around "answer" were supposed to mean, by the way). I agree with them. The problem is that they already contain multiple suggestions for change which have been ignored. Further, the fact that a sysop could modify the page is not really a justification for the page remaining locked, is it? --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 21:41, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I am not going to engage in further discussion with you on here as I am new to CP and don't wish to violate the 90/10 rule. Perhaps some others can enlighten you. I'm going to go edit some more articles in the meantime and I recommend you do the same. Cheers --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Really, well I am not new to CP. Coincidentally, I started as an editor here ([[User:Horace|Horace]]) on the same day as [[User:Conservative|He Who Controls the Evolution Article]]. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 23:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Despite the fact that I would like to see this article unlocked, I do not think that it is a good idea to do so. I would guess that nearly 100% of people who go to this website look at that page, since it is easily one of the most controversial topics of our time, and this site's view on it is, um, rather unpopular. I cannot imagine the amount of vandalism that page would receive if it was unlocked. Is there any way that we could implement MediaWiki's autoconfirm feature ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAutoConfirmAge 1], [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAutoConfirmCount 2]) to require, say, 200 edits and 3 weeks experience to be autoconfirmed? That way, you would be able to protect pages, and still allow more than a handful of people to edit them. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 22:17, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: That strikes me as an excellent idea. I'll go mention it to the boss. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I would suggest a higher ceiling, personally. 200 edits is fairly easy to do. I would say ''at least'' half a ton. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Minor inaccuracy ==

I don't know if pointing this out will help get this fixed, but "failed liberal radio network Air America" is inaccurate. They are still in business. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:They are only still in business because rich donors are artificially keeping them afloat instead of the network being funded by advertisers. These clowns just can't accept that there is simply no money to be made from the farthest of the far left listeners. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
How they are still in business is irrelevant. They still are, the main page says they aren't, thus the main page is inaccurate. Pretty cut and dry it seems. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:19, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Is she really conservative? ==
Is Sarah Palin really the conservative that conservapedia says she is?

--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:19, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Environmentalism is a religion?==
The Environmentalism headline is pretty weak. Since when does one picture of an environmentalist praying mean that environmentalism is therefore a religion (you are aware that some environmentalists are Christian, and therefore pray to the Christian God, aren't you?)? Would a picture of a truck driver praying mean that Teamsterism is a religion? There's not even a story to go along with the picture. I can't tell if it's supposed to be a joke or not. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I was thinking when I saw it. How does the contributor know who the guy is praying to? I notice that the main page at least removed the "photographic proof" part.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:12, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::I saw this last night after the ability to edit was deactivated and couldn't wait to say something about this. Both the comments above are perfect criticisms of this. Even if it is supposed to be a joke, how is it supposed to be '''trustworthy''' or '''encyclopedic''' (I really hope the site can start living up to it's own branding here)??? I mean, is the Conservapedia main page just going to start turning into a blog aggregator, and basically a proxy for people who aren't bound (OKAY, obligated to be bound) by the same code of net ethics as Conservapedia? Plus, a lot of what the breaking news section has to say anymore isn't even stated accurately. They just mirror the (often inaccurate) titles of the links and only after tons of people criticize the wording do they even begin to change it around. Honestly, I think the breaking news section would be more helpful if it wasn't just the "Liberal Bloopers of the Day" section. I mean, how can you put "Environmentalism ''is'' a Religion" in the NEWS section and have anybody take this site seriously? They even emphasize the "is" so you know you can(?) really(?) trust(?) it. Besides, lower case R in religion, right? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::No reply, I see. Hardly surprising, given this site's adherence to widely discredited stories such as the Palin teleprompter "fail," the cub scout bus "attack," and the promotion of the silly "liberalism causes insanity" fairy tale, to name but a few. Well, I tried. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, they're cowards. Check the Bobby Jindal talk page for more Conservapedia bloopers. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 16:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==News==
How do I post news items on the main page? I wanted to add this story http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75367, but I can't seem to edit it. [[User:DemocratsForMccain|DemocratsForMccain]] 11:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:Join the [[Wikiproject:News|News project]]. Add your suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Garofalo Story==

I was a little confused about why this is on the front page? This is a comedian and well known liberal saying something nasty and mean spirited about Conservatives. Why is this considered news? Garofalo has always had an outspoken character and she has constantly made remarks similar to what she said on the program. A bigger concern, however, is why the other story is linked, saying her associates.... Are we claiming that Garafalo was responsible for a silly name change in England? Or is the point that she's a liberal, they're liberal, so their actions are interchangable? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Atheist "conversion attempt" on Christian==

The man charged in the case is a nutjob who was clearly harassing her in an unbalanced way, and for him to claim it was an attempt to change her beliefs is a pathetic attempt at evading responsibility. That said, anyone portraying his actions as a legitimate attempt to convert someone's beliefs is being deceitful, no matter what the article states. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome back Dinsdale, and I agree. This man has some serious issues that need to be addressed. It seems his Atheist views are becomming his twinkie defense. Sadly, people like that simply make all others look bad by association. Just as overzealous street preachers hurt the cause of Christianity (or Islam, The black muslims are infuriatingly aggressive) people blaming their mental hangups on atheism are just passing the buck. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:But of course any "nutjob" who does something bizarre in the name of converting people to Christianity is the real deal, right? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps this is just an example supporting the theory that there is a [[Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?|link between atheism and mental illness]] --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 16:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Jinx, instead of just watching you resort to blubbery rhetorical questions here, may I suggest you file them in Debate Topics? Secondly, yes, DRamon, that's clearly what's going on here. Conservapedia comes up with theories such as that, and THEN, and only THEN, does it start to search for evidence, flimsy as it may be, to support it. Such "examples" can thus be trumpeted as the latest epitome of the "Liberalism Is (insert bad thing here) Theory". It's kind of like the global warming conspiracy, except without any of the people having credentials and it's got a lot more to do with making people retarded. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 16:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I won't get into discussion regarding DRamon and Otherside's comments, I think they're having their own discussion. To Jinx, I did not say that. In fact, I said that any street preacher who harrasses people in a bid to convert them only hurts Christianity, just as this guy claiming an Atheist conversion makes all other atheists look bad by comparison. It's a well known Psychology principle that people natually fear groups they don't relate to. When that fear is there, it's very easy to make a judgment of them based on hearsay and conjecture. When Birth of a Nation was released, a lot of people commented on how this movie "opened their eyes" to the behavior of blacks, even though the movie was complete fiction. My point is not that any nutjob who claim Christianity as a defense is real, but simply that when people adopt those defenses, they only reinforce negative sterotypes. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:35, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I tend to stick to the basics with cases like these. When a deranged nut does something awful, it really doesn't matter what beliefs they profess to be the driver for their actions - in the end, it's simply because the person ''is a deranged nut''. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Constitution Day==

The answer is: yes, but not enough. Some of us are trying to improve that, though.

In my experience, schools observe the letter of the law concerning Constitution Day, but typically go no further than that. Social Studies classes present lessons related to the Constitution, in accordance with the law, while many other teachers are completely unaware that such a law exists, and that's a shame.

Now, granted, it would be tough to build really substantial math lessons around the Constitution, and probably at least somewhat difficult to do the same with science, but English classes, at least, can easily take up the gauntlet; we're only talking about one of the most important written documents in history. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

My school does pretty well. They have posters everywhere that say constitution day: Ask a history teacher <question like who is protected by the constitution? When was the constitution day written?>. During lunch you could go to the history wing and hang out and talk about the constitution, eat cake, and take a quiz to see how much you know about it. They don't go over the top, but it's certainly recognized. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that there are certain ironies in a government-mandated observation of the document meant to protect us from oppresive government mandates. Some even argue that Constitution Day is itself unconstitutional, since not observing it can be punished by revoking federal funding, leading to what amounts to forced speech. Just some food for thought. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Painting Masterpieces - Conservapedia ==

Our article is number 28 in Google among 302,000.

See: http://www.google.com.mx/search?hl=es&client=firefox-a&rls=com.google:es-ES:official&q=Painting+Masterpieces&start=20&sa=N

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's excellent. And even better on my Google search: we're number 9 for "Painting Masterpieces" for my search.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::While that is interesting, how many people in Mexico, a Spanish speaking country, would google Painting Masterpieces, an English phrase? The same goes for atheism for Google Cuba-Why search "atheism" when you (as a Cuban) know it as "ateísmo" --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 20:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: So obvious that ''no comment'' is necessary. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:45, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's Email Account==

I hope the people behind this are caught and prosecuted as swiftly as possible. Whether or not Palin used the account for questionable purposes is irrelevant - the right for people to have personal communications without fear of illegal eavesdropping is more important and needs to be protected. My only negative comment about Palin in this matter is that government-related communications need to stay on secured government systems. The Bush administration set a dangerous precedent in its use of RNC email accounts by Karl Rove and others to discuss matters they did not want to be subject to FIA search or subpoena. When Palin's use of personal email accounts for some governing-related communications is [http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/526281.html mentioned] in Alaska newspapers, it's going to make those accounts an inviting target for hacker groups like Anonymous. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:This incident is an excellent example of liberals' hypocrisy. For years, they have bellowed about privacy rights (particularly when it comes to people being investigated for ties to terrorism), yet when it comes to a Republican, well, their concern for such rights just flies out the nearest window. It suddenly becomes quite acceptable for them to hack a Republican's email account and post the information within all over the internet. Nice, guys. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::This assumes the people who did this are privacy rights advocates, and since we don't know who they are, we can't say what their opinions are. It's not like hacking into email accounts is a thing liberals in general do, and since I haven't seen anyone defending it, we can't really call liberals in general hypocrites for this (any liberal who does defend it would be a hypocrite, I agree). It was a crime, pure and simple. No one blames conservatives as a group when Obama gets death threats. [[User:TomG|TomG]] 10:19, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::If the hacker who did it isn't a privacy rights advocate, the liberals who posted the information on their websites are. And what planet are you living on to think that all conservatives don't get blamed when the Obamessiah gets death threats? Have you never read DailyKos, Democrat Underground, Huffington Post or the like? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::No, I actually have never read those blogs (well, I may have seen a column or two at some point), but if you have can you provide links to article in which they blame conservatives as a whole for threats on Obama (and by that I mean more than merely describing a suspect as "conservative")? If you can, I, for one, will denounce them (for all the good it will do). [[User:TomG|TomG]] 11:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Michelle Malkin has a copy of a message the hacker responsible left to explain his actions. In it, he admits he was hoping to find something incriminating to derail her campaign: "I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor... And pictures of her family." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:The hacking group which claimed responsibility, Anonymous, is not what I'd call a "liberal" group at all, despite claims to the contrary, and they are definitely not privacy-right activists. [http://www.neoconstant.com/1146/unmasking-the-anonymous-protest-group This story] describes them a little more realistically. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::Anonymous has no affiliation. It has no organization. There is no leader, and anyone could be a member. It is completely chaotic and amorphous, if anything you could call them anarchists, but that would still be a stretch.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 13:12, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Yet the person responsible has stated his goal was to hurt Gov. Palin. I don't see anyone trying to hurt the Obamessiah in this manner. Do you? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jinx, let me see if I understand your logic. You say that democrats are privacy advocates, okay with you so far. But then you call liberal's hypocritical for releasing information on left-wing blogs that is already in the public domain? Relaying information does not mean you agree or are defending it. If that were true, you could call Fox news a conservative traitor for discussing the Craig airport scandal. Reporting the facts of a story and any information in the public domain does not provide any insight to what an organization's viewpoint on a subject is; it is just the standard purpose of the news media. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::So, if someone handed you goods that you knew were stolen, you'd have no problem selling them to profit yourself and/or your causes? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::: While we may disagree with what the websites have done with that information, they are still protected via the 1st amendment, as long as they were not involved with procuring this information, and from what I understand about anonymous, they would not work with the press in matters such as these. --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 10:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== My account was blocked and deleted ==
Hello,

My original account under the name Carolyn was deleted accusing me of being a sock. I cannot contact the sysop (Karajou) who deleted it because he has not enabled the email and has locked his talk page. I use TOR for the self defense of online privacy - so some others at some time will use the same IP. Please block me for any vandalism or actions not in the interest of the encyclopedia, but not for protecting myself online. So please unblock my account. I am sorry I had to make a sock for this, as there was no other way. --[[User:Carolyn2|Carolyn2]] 10:03, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
: There ''was'' another way. The [[Special:Userlogin|registration page]] (which you used to create the second account) says not to make a second account, and directs you to [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#If you get blocked]] where is says to contact another administrator if you can't contact the person who blocked you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::This seems to happen quite often. Perhaps it would be a good policy that anybody with blocking rights should enable their email. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: ''All'' editors are supposed to have e-mail enabled, although some editors joined before this was a requirement. And some reportedly have had trouble getting it to work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm going to strike out my last question, assume that your account was compromised through TOR, and restore it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Thank you all for your help. Karajou thank you for unblocking me. {{unsigned|Carolyn}}

==Mini Main Page News Section==

It's curious that there's not been any Main Page News attention paid to the enormous turbulence happening in the global financial markets at present - in any other news medium, regardless of political leaning, it's the No.1 story at the moment. While many of the issues are probably too complex for this venue, there's no denying there's great complexities for those of both liberal and conservative members of the public. Prime amongst them is the incredibly rapid nationalization of the financial markets, which has the US Government now owning about half of all the property in the country (through the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and also the insurance against those mortgages (AIG). With the government now very definitely in a socialistic property ownership situation, it's surprising not to see much comment here on Conservapedia about the issue, no? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 14:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Do we really need this liberal whinging? The number 1 story at the moment, contrary to what the Chicken Little MSM would have you believe, is the strength of our workers who represent the most fundemental part of the economy. Take this claptrap somewhere else. [[User:CElderman|CElderman]] 19:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::American workers, with their skill, ingenuity and resilience, are no doubt amongst the hardest workers in this global economy. Having said this, the fundamentals of the economy are not the workers; the fundamentals are tied to unemployment rates, consumer spending, federal debt, energy costs, etc. The economy is in serious trouble at the moment, it is reflected in the markets and the real economy. Why do you consider it liberal whining to address it?--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 21:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Indeed. CElderman - it would be unwise to consider the biggest financial meltdown in recent history to be a 'liberal thing'. You can rest assured many conservatives and Conservapedians will have had their retirement investments severely damaged in the past two weeks. My point was - how come it's not being discussed? I'd be interested in reading conservative opinions on the matter, I genuinely would- this is difficult for all of us. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::We are not even in a recession. GDP 3% growth month after month. 96% of the mortgages- PAID ON TIME.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::To be honest, though, I do see an important message in the current financial turmoil--fiscal responsibility. This problem was caused, bluntly, by people borrowing more than they could repay and trying to live on credit. Surely the lesson to be learned here is one of personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Thanks, jp. I was at the Wal-Mart the other day and the average american worker is doing just fine. In fact, they were sold out of the plasma screen tv that I was going to purchase. Guess that I'm just going to have to wait a week before using my credit card to pump up American economy. AS IF IT NEEDED ANY PUMPING! Anyone who is really paying attention (i.e not relyingon the BIASED MSM!) can see that the jerks being affected are the Harvard and other liberal university egghead graduates that failed when they applied their book learning to the real world of real money.[[User:CElderman|CElderman]] 22:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::I salute your fantastic optimism, but it seems the Republican Presidential candidate doesn't. His [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/candidates-argue-for-action-on-economy-but-mainly-offer-criticism/ suggestion today] (reported by non-MSM Fox News) that he would fire the SEC Chairman Chris Cox, another Republican, came as a surprise to many. And the [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122177811990254369.html Wall St. Journal], normally known as a staunchly conservative organ, describes the crisis today as the greatest financial makeover in the US financial markets since the 1930's. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 23:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::Your sarcasm is noted, but you prove my point for me. According to his biography, Cox received and MBA and law degree from Harvard. HE EVEN TAUGHT THERE!!!! The #1 candidate is right to get rid of him. This just shows further how liberal our current leaders are. WE NEED TO RETURN TO WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ENVISIONED FOR THIS GREAT COUNTRY!!!! The socialist stuff that we are currently subject to is ridiculous. Oh, and I almost forgot, the Wall St. Journal, as part of the MSM is too leftwing for me. You might want to open your eyes to World Net Daily. And oh also like the Wall Streeet journal doesn't have their own selfineteres in mind here?!??! Yeah right. Wall Street is just complaining so that OUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT will give them more $$$$.[[User:CElderman|CElderman]] 23:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Isn't a government debt of 9.7 trillion something the average American worker should be worried about? Shouldn't we be worried about billions of taxpayer dollars in bailouts? Remember, these bailouts aren't just affecting the high-brow liberal institutions. AIG is the biggest insurance company in America. Washington Mutual is the biggest savings and loans bank in America. What happens if they go under? Also, what about record high oil and food prices? They affect the average worker. What about high unemployment? Surely that is a problem. Perhaps the biggest concern is the value of the dollar, which is plummeting as the Fed prints endless sums of money and the Republican President and Democratic Congress continue to spend outrageous sums of money. Remember, if the value of the dollar drops past a certain point, we won't be able to borrow money from other countries... and we'll have to default on our current loans, which would bankrupt the country.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 23:30, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Indeed so - and the US debt is about to soar to over $11 trillion under this new Act they'll bring in next week. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, whatever one's opinion of the matter, the 'free market' certainly became a lot less free this morning. Now, in addition to the nationalization of mortgages and mortgage insurance, short selling has been banned. Interesting times indeed. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Conservative financial blogger Barry Ritholtz describes today's decisions bluntly - "The deregulation movement is now an historical footnote, just another interest group, and once in power they turned into socialists. Indeed, judging by the actions of the conservatives in power, and not the empty rhetoric that comes out of think tanks, the conservative movement has effectively turned the United States into a massive Socialist state, an appendage of Communist Russia, China and Venezuela"[http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/the-new-new-dea.html]. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If I understand CElderman and jp correctly, they are saying that the economy is doing fine and American workers aren't in any financial trouble. Boy, I wish that were true in this part of the country! In these parts we are having a lot of difficulty making ends meet, and I'm not talking about intellectuals and Harvard grads. Jobs are hard to come by, and self-employed and small-business folks (the majority of folks here) have made less money than at this time last year and every expense item has gone up. Plus, winter is coming, and my monthly budget fuel bill was raised 65%. Those folks who actually have any pensions have seen their value reduced a lot; they are hoping that might get corrected over the next 1-2 years. I won't bother to relate how much the value of our modest homes has declined. Fortunately this is not one of the high-foreclosure areas; we are a fairly responsible bunch. Anyway, CElderman and jp, I'm glad life is so rosy where you live. Have some empathy, though; lots and lots of Americans, many of them conservative, are facing tough times. The current financial situation is scary, no matter which angle you view it from.--[[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 13:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Leansleft, our nation's debts are the Achilles of freedom and security. How much do we pay OPEC for gas we have right here? Billions upon billions. Who wants to add healthcare for everybody to a 11 Trillion debt? Savings and Loan was a disaster too, but America always gets through. Unless we are now too dependent on China and others because of wealth redistribution.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 06:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It would be a very foolish Republican ''or'' Democrat who would describe the coming $1 trillion Government bailout of bad debt as trivial, irrelevant news. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:I find it increasingly odd that you would, for example, consider the item about some complex internal battles at the UN over stories like [http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/bernankes-testimony-weigh-markets/ this one at the same website], [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425672,00.html the text of the financial rescue Bill planned next week], [http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN1926280020080919 or this -"this idea that unfettered capitalism is the way to go has finally been put to rest."]. The Bill itself is astonishing - "The Secretary is authorized to purchase...mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States....Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and ...may not be reviewed by any court of law or ... agency." No review possible - that sound you hear is the sound of the Totalitarian State Front Doorbell. All this to the tune of $700 billion. The death of capitalism? Perhaps not, but it's certainly the death of free markets, and it certainly is the beginning of a new era of extreme Federal involvement in the lives of every citizen. Strange days indeed. And stranger yet - no comment on it here whatsoever? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

At one extreme we have unfettered capitalism, and at the other, total socialism. But in between there is a lot of middle ground. Although I'm a believer in capitalism, I also believe in some regulation. The real question is, how much? I think Australia has it close to right, and it looks like the U.S. has had too little in some areas. Because of this, it's gotten into trouble and has to become drastically more "socialist" to overcome the crisis. But although this may be the short term situation, I can't see the U.S. being socialist in the long term, although neither am I saying that it will return to the same minimal regulation that it's had.

Yes, much of the problem is people not taking personal responsibility for their own finances, and borrowing more than they could afford. However, the flow-on affect has consequences for many other people. Here in Oz I'm now having to pay more on my mortgage because interest rates have gone up partly because the banks here (adequately regulated and not in danger of collapse) have to recover losses that they've incurred because some of their funds were invested in the American financial markets. Compared to many Americans, I'm still doing well, and I'm not really complaining, but simply pointing out that the financial crisis has effects well beyond those directly involved in it, and this is one reason why the industry needs to be adequately regulated.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I know I'm really just having this conversation with myself, as no-one here seems remotely interested apart form you PJR, but I am at least glad to see that the Democrats have wrangled some sense out of the proposed Act and it will apparently not have such totalitarian powers for the Treasury Secretary in the next revision. Thank you Democrats! Meanwhile McCain bleats on about the situation with great ignorance. Hardly surprising for a man who came 894 of a class of 899 in the US Naval Academy. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 17:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm really the only person here interested in this, the biggest news story of our generation? It seems so. Nevertheless, that won't stop me making my own mini-Main Page News hereNow, Republicans too are [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/congress.bailout.reax/index.html lining up against the proposed Act]. Given the extraordinary nature of the way this Bill was presented, it'll be amazing if everyone manages to agree on it. If they don't, woe betide all of us, liberals and conservatives both. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Go Mr. Trump! ==

I'm glad that such an upstanding leader in American society as Donald Trump has the integrity to declare his support for John McCain. To me his choice in the election clearly seems to be a selfless act of principle. A man so set on making money would not usually support the candidate who doesn't support continuing flawed policies that have widened America's division of wealth. Oh wait... [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 22:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

: To me, his choice was..."Who does Rosey like?" "I'll take the opposite, thanks."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Taxpayer money to fund research into [[World of Warcraft]] ==

A [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/17/prof-gets-100000-grant-study-world-warcraft Professor] has won 100000$ in grant from National Science Foundation to research World of Warcraft. Surely, Taxpayer money could be put to better use? Is this suitable for our news section?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 08:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:It is a study about China and its society. ''Know thy enemy'' etc. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 08:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Christian beliefs promote rationalism ==

Baylor/Gallup study:

<blockquote>
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
</blockquote>

Ha!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Once this gets on the front page, a lot of [ir]rational heads will explode. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:47, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention the atheists, Jinx: 'those who believe in nothing, will believe in anything'. Nice work! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:They're in there: "'''the irreligious''' and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jinxmchue, if you move this to the <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|New Suggestions]]</nowiki> page, I will post it. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Ja wol! (Oops. Maybe I shouldn't say that since I'm "a known racist.") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Hey, what do you mean by "known racist"? Is that a sarcastic reference to something (what?)? I don't want to contribute to a racist wiki. Thank you. --[[User:BillB|BillB]] 12:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::'Irreligious' seems like a broad and vague category.[[User:Decemberist|Decemberist]] 12:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== McCain's win odds fairly steady ==

So far, the betting market has not responded to all the poor polling coming out for McCain this past few days. His win probability is down, but only slightly - to 41% from 43% last week. See [[User:Ferret/ElectionOdds|here]] for update. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Proofing the Main Page ==
===Grammar, yet again.===
''Evolutionists claim another scalp—one of their own—as <s>the</s> Michael Reiss, Director of Education of the Royal Society is sacked for suggesting that schools ought to teach students about creationism.'' Please change this by removing "the". --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
: Sorry about that. I originally wrote it as "the Director of Education", then decided I ought to put his name in, and managed to stuff it up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::No sweat - I figured it was something like that. No one is perfect. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Plagarism Concern===
''"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.'' This is a quote taken word-for-word from the source article. While a citation to the article is given, it's still important to indicate that the text above is a direct quote, rather than a summary written by a Conservapedia editor. Please fix this. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===More Grammar===
''Although I am a Democrat, I recognize that it’s more important to put country ahead of party and that’s why I support John Although I am a Democrat, I recognize that it’s more important to put country ahead of party and that’s why I support John McCain." She said.'' "She said" should be part of the previous sentence. Please change it to: '''McCain," she said.''' Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Prepositional Phrases===
''Just in case anyone thought he was dead, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.'' OK, I'm going to ignore the ''Just in case anyone thought he was dead'' part. The second part of the sentence should read ''Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that, for wealthier Americans, paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do.'' That is, paying taxes is not done FOR wealthier Americans, it's done BY wealthier Americans. See what I mean? (Oh - and I realize I probably should have started a section called "Proofing the Main Page" rather than several small sections - I didn't realize how many errors I'd find. Sorry.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

: You know one of the good things about a Wiki? You can change it! "Proofing the Main Page" is now a section! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Comma Use===
''"This is a shocking invasion of the Alaska Governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them" the McCain campaign said.'' There should be a comma after "them" (before the quotation mark). I'm really not a grammar expert or anything - just noticing some errors this morning. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
: I say that it should be ''after'' the quotation mark, but then this is an American encyclopedia, and you Americans have funny rules! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I agree! If I was in charge of making up the rules, it would be after the quotation mark! Before the quotation mark makes no sense to me. It drives me crazy every time I have to make myself do it the American way. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Period at the end of a sentence?===
''Atheist's bizarre bid to convert a Christian [23]'' This is not actually a sentence, but several other entries like this include a period at the end (before the reference), so I think this one needs a period too. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===No capitalization after semi-colon?===
''Poll shows radical shift in November expectations; More people now think John McCain will win in November: [24]'' Generally speaking, you don't capitalize a word after a semi-colon. While this is more of a headline/phrase type of thing rather than a full sentence, I still think "More" should be lower case, though I am open to discussion of this. Note also that this shows a third way of ending a brief blurb - not with a period, not with nothing, but with a colon. I think a period should be the standard, but I'd again be open to discussion. Either way, there should be a standard format. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Canadian Babies===
''Statistics reveal that 80-90% of Canadian and approximately 95 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome in England and Spain are aborted.'' As written, this sentence implies that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Sort of - it's kind of a mess. How about ''80-90% of Canadian babies with Down syndrome are aborted. In the US, it's an estimated 84-91%, in England, 94%, and in Spain, 95%. '' Not perfect, maybe someone else can take a stab at it.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Word Usage===
''Pope Benedict XVI is advocating Catholics to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. He said at a church service Monday that people should accept death "at the hour chosen by God."'' Either the Pope is ''<s>advocating</s> '''urging''' Catholics to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide'', or he is ''advocating '''that''' Catholics <s>to</s> oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Word Usage II===
''To liberals and those in the media, conservative opposition possess a dangerous threat to them. Because of this, Democrats and the media propagate caricatures about conservatives. This results in the left's large comprehension gap.'' Do they ''possess'' a threat? Or '''pose''' one? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Verb Tense Agreement===
''Are you a fan of Conservapedia and want some suggestions for letting more people know about Conservapedia?'' One fix would be ''Are you a fan of Conservapedia'''? Do you''' <s>and</s> want some suggestions for letting more people know about Conservapedia?'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't see any problem with the original here, mom. The 'do you' is implicit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps, but it's better fixed, which I've now done (in a different way; is it okay?). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

===Thanks for the attention to detail, Mom===

Each of those corrections may seem minor, but collectively they improve the professional appearance of the site. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
: Fixed! ;) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Yeah, THAT was ironic, wasn't it? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==Question re Federal Funds & Education==
A main page article states ''Sept. 17 was U.S. Constitution Day, and public schools are required to recognize it. Do they?'' But reading the source, I'm not clear that this law applies to K-12 public schools. Do they get Federal funds directly from the DOE? Or are the funds given to the states to be distributed locally? Is a "local educational agency" a public school? Or does that refer more to an administrative level? Here is the text that made me question this:

''Section 111(b) states "[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution." For purposes of the Department's implementation of this requirement, "educational institutions" includes but is not limited to "local educational agencies" and "institutions of higher education" receiving Federal funding from the Department. Section 111 applies to all educational institutions receiving Federal funding, not only those receiving Federal funding from the Department. However, the Department's authority only extends to those educational institutions receiving funding from the Department, and consequently the Department can only regulate with regard to those institutions.''

If this article is to stay on the main page, it needs further fact-checking to be sure it applies to K-12 public schools. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
==The year 2009 A.D.==
Please have one of the admins fix this "news". Something along the lines of, "'''2009 marks the sesquicentennial of two notable Darwinian...'''" The section about Conservapedia's internal decisions about what belongs '''"In the News'''" section doesn't really make it ''as'' "news". [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 19:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Also, as Marge's edit summary said, the first page visitors see is frequently the main page. Is keeping an aggressive picture of Hitler permanently on the front page to welcome potential new users ''for the next fifteen months'' really such a great idea? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::Given past experience, I am pretty sure our opinion counts for about nothing, especially when it comes to user Conservative. There's no point in arguing against it.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 20:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Give a dog a bad name.... Yes, there's nothing like slandering a well-respected editor for something he hasn't done! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I do believe he has done whatever he wanted to do despite other users asking for him to do otherwise. It's not slander if it's true. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 13:28, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I must admit we haven't chatted much, so perhaps I just don't have a grasp of your ''patois''. Which well-respected editor hasn't done what? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::According to IanG Conservative wonn't listen to whatever argument IanG and Sideways have not yet put, because that's the way conservatives are. I should add this technique to [[Liberal tricks]] if it isn't already there! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:40, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::No, that's the way the user conservative is. Though I better stop now before I get called a maggot.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I've reworded it a little and moved it to the left side. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives more jumpy than liberals==
Seams there is a new study which suggest that conservatives would be more easily frightened and that would allso explain their attitudes towards for example gun control etc. [http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/09/19/2368908.htm?site=science&topic=latest link]. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 21:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:A "study" of just forty-six people - ''forty-six!'' - is hardly trustworthy. I'm not surprised at all that the people crowing about it are conveniently overlooking that rather important point. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:02, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well spotted, Jinx. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

==Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac==

Maybe if the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions to Obama's campaign is going to be mentioned, we should mention the contributions to McCain's campaign too: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.jpg . McCain received 169,000$ and Obama received 16,000$ from them. [[User:Watercracker|Watercracker]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Absolutely we should. Politically savvy readers know that large companies often donate to both parties in an election, so smart readers won't put any stock in the information about contributions to Obama until they see the corresponding figure for McCain. If Conservapedia is to be Trustworthy, it needs to put facts in context for the reader. This is particularly true when, with just a few clicks, the reader can discover that the story isn't quite as Conservapedia seems to be spinning it. Otherwise, the reader loses trust in Conservapedia to provide accurate, trustworthy information, and Conservapedia's reputation is tarnished. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== They simply cannot help themselves ==

This was an interesting article:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUKN1947503920080920

<blockquote>
Masses of dust floating around a distant binary star system suggest that two Earth-like planets obliterated each other in a violent collision, U.S. researchers reported on Friday.

"It's as if Earth and Venus collided with each other," Benjamin Zuckerman, an astronomer at the University of California Los Angeles, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

"Astronomers have never seen anything like this before; apparently major, catastrophic, collisions can take place in a fully mature planetary system."
</blockquote>

Until it came to this laughable and inevitable point:

<blockquote>
"If any life was present on either planet, the massive collision would have wiped out everything in a matter of minutes: the ultimate extinction event," said Gregory Henry of Tennessee State University.
</blockquote>

[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

:You're right - its a very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. But what's "laughable and inevitable"? What's your point? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::Yeah, I don't understand what's so laughable about this. The thought that there could have been life on another planet? If so, I think it's just a complete hypothetical, or perhaps staying with the comparison of this event to Earth colliding with Venus. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

==Proofing the Page==
===Bill Maher===
''Maher admits lying to the people he interviewed about the subject matter and title of the film - the only surprise is that he didn't lie about his lying.'' This may (or may not) be true, but the cited reference does not support it. The statement should be removed until a supporting reference can be added. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:It seems that who ever put that on the news page seems to have forgotten [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Issues surrounding the film|something.]] 16:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT) [[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]]
: I agree (with Hsmom). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks. Unfortunately, it's still there. If Conservapedia is to be trustworthy, sources must be cited, especially when we are accusing someone of deceit. Without sources, we should not post accusations. I would not be surprised if this accusation was true; after all, we've seen this kind of behavior before, as [[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] notes. Nonetheless, I'd like to see front page material carefully sourced. It's nothing less than what we'd expect of students.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Racial Views===
''A Stanford University study found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward African Americans. Honest Democratic citizens need to breakaway from the liberal party's influence.'' The second sentence doesn't seem to follow from the first, nor does it make sense in the context of the cited article. The entry states ''Honest Democratic citizens need to breakaway from the liberal party's influence'', yet the cited article does not discuss whether Democrats who harbor negative views toward African Americans do so ''because of'' influence from the Democratic party. In addition, the article didn't mention the number of white Republicans who harbor negative views toward African Americans, so we don't know if it was ''higher'' or ''lower'' than the number of Democrats. In fact, since the article states ''40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.'', and among Democrats it is only 33%, it is quite possible that the percentage of Republicans who feel this way is higher than 33%. One has to be careful in drawing conclusions from statistics. I think this entry needs to be modified to be more in line with the cited article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
: Well put. I again agree. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks - I believe this one has been fixed.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Movie Boycott, or Publicity===
''The founder of the movie review company Movieguide has joined the growing ranks of protesters calling for a box office boycott of two films that feature sexually explicit scenes involving young girls.'' Why give these movies any more attention? It's pretty much standard practice to generate PR for movies by playing up controversy. Why allow Conservapedia to be used in this way?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
: The films themselves are not mentioned, and although objecting can give publicity, ''not'' objecting gives implicit support. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm glad the films aren't mentioned. However, I don't agree that not objecting gives implicit support. Unless Conservapedia is going to provide comprehensive film ratings/reviews, I feel there is no obligation to call attention to the existence of these films. I'm guessing there are a ''lot'' of films that many Conservapedians would find objectionable; we couldn't possibly list them all. I fear that we are playing into the PR plans of the films' distributors by calling attention to them.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Air America===
''the ex-host of the failed liberal radio network Air America,'' As noted in an entry above, Air American is not a "failed" network; it is still on the air. Please change this - if Conservapedia is to be a Trustworthy encyclopedia, it must get the details right. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for bringing it up again, Hsmom. And she's the "ex-host" of a ''show'' on the network, not the network itself. (She's on NovaM now, and back in Florida). [[User:Human|Human]] 22:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:: It's gone from the Main Page now, but I don't consider "failed" synonymous with "off the air". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::: I can see your point to some extent, but perhaps another word (struggling?) would be more appropriate. This one's been archived now, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:48, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Still here?===
''Environmentalism is a Religion.'' I really don't get why this is still here. We have a link to a picture of several people who are apparently "watching four tree-sitters come down from a 90-foot redwood at UC Berkeley, ending a 21-month sit-in. The protesters had been trying to block the razing of a forest to make way for development." One of the people in the picture appears to be praying, possibly asking God to help the tree-sitters get down safely from the 90-foot tree. How does that make environmentalism a religion? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:If you look at our article on [[Nazism]] you will find that in a 1941 survey of German POWs, 50% gave 'nature' as their religion. Environmentalism '''is''' a religion - and one espoused by some pretty unpleasant types. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Nazis. Huh.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:49, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::How many of them listed their religion as a Christian denomination? Besides, it's pretty clear that they meant some form of paganism, which is not the same as or equal to environmentalism, despite some stupid, blubbery smug comment that might follow this. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

===Formatting===
We have no apparent standard for these left-side articles. Some have bold headlines; others do not. Some end in a period before the link; others end in a colon, others have no punctuation before the link. Some are in Title Case; others Sentence case. There is no reference section on the page, and links are not given titles. Can we discuss some standards? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

: We like diversity!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

: I'll have a look at this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::A bit, yes. Thanks. I can see some improvement. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think diversity is a good thing when it comes to people, not so much with grammar and punctuation. Though I suppose it was good enough for the founding fathers...--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:51, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Canadian Babies===
This one, mentioned previously, still has not been fixed, so I'm repeating it here - could someone take a stab at it please?
''Statistics reveal that 80-90% of Canadian and approximately 95 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome in England and Spain are aborted.'' As written, this sentence implies that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Sort of - it's kind of a mess. How about ''80-90% of Canadian babies with Down syndrome are aborted. In the US, it's an estimated 84-91%, in England, 94%, and in Spain, 95%. '' Not perfect, maybe someone else can take a stab at it.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

: The meaning is clear. No one would think that 80-90% of Canadian babies are aborted. Headlines are never models of perfection, and your more wordy suggestion is not a significant improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that matters of grammar and readability are ''very'' important for a site such as this, especially on the front page. You are right that the reader can figure out what was meant in the sentence above, but it can be improved. My version is not perfect, I freely admit. However, "significant improvement" should not be the standard required in order to make a change. Even a minor improvement is a step in the right direction. I don't mean to be critical by posting suggestions on this page. On most other pages, I would simply insert the commas, or change the capitalization, or re-word the sentence to be grammatically correct - whatever is needed. However, I do not have editing privileges on this page, so when I see areas of concern I must use the talk page to communicate them to those who can make the changes. I was assuming such contributions would be helpful and welcomed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Suggestions are welcome, and I explained why this suggestion was not adopted. We've seen nit-picky complaints about headlines before. When they are valid, we change them, but often the suggested alternatives are not meaningful improvements. In this case, the headline is not even on the main page any more, yet you're still complaining about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the headline was on the main page this morning, when I posted my concerns. I see that it has now been archived, so it's probably not worth changing it at this point. I do not, however, believe my concerns were nit-picky. As a homeschool teacher/mom, I believe that good grammar is always appropriate, and we should set an example for our students/children by being careful in our own writing, especially here since this site is designed, in part, to be used by students. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:40, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree that we should adopt high standards of grammar and accuracy. But as it's not on the Main Page now... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
: Thank you, [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]].--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's Social Security Whopper==

I know the News headlines here are supposed to be pro-conservative, but isn't it it a blatant double-standard to discuss any Obama ad as misleading when the McCain campaign has been admonished by no less than the Wall Street Journal and Karl Rove for crossing the line in being misleading? It's possible to be both pro-conservative and still acknowledge the criticisms being leveled at the conservative candidate by fellow conservatives. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
: I agree. We should hold ''all'' candidates to high standards.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:55, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Palin email hackers caught ==

Good to see we're covering this on the front page (and of course good to hear the FBI has identified the criminal!).
Hopefully this incident will serve as a warning to the occasional hackers/vandals on Conservapedia that you can't be completely anonymous on the Internet - if you hack, law enforcement WILL find you. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 13:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:Vandals on CP are not in the same class as hackers. Hacking involves illegally gaining access to a secured computer or website. Vandalism on CP involves access to a wiki that is open to nearly everyone, which explains why the FBI is not the least bit interested in pursing CP vandals--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Do you have a source for that? Did the FBI personally explain it to you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It would be nice if FBI catched one of those vandals and it turned out to be another son of a Democratic politician! It would also give us some notoriety. --[[User:Devout|Devout]] 13:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Many [[liberals]] don't believe in teaching that [[deceit]] is wrong. In addition to being a crime, deceitful trespassing is wrong. Too bad some people don't learn and teach that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Idea... what do you think about expanding the [[deceit]] article a little to cover the topic of deceitful trespassing? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Some excuses have been tossed around by the left saying that the people behind the hack were "anarchists" who had no loyalty to any political group. However, Michelle Malkin reproduced a post this guy made on the site where these hackers get together (which I will not link to since it was explained to be loaded with pornography - another unsurprising fact). In it, he explained that he hacked the account looking for information that would hurt Palin. That hardly sounds like someone with no loyalties. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:Given that this is an open wiki (ie - with no restrictions on joining), and that vandalism of any page can be undone with a single click, is law enforcement really interested in prosecuting the vandals? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:: That's a silly argument. As an analogy, a public street is "open" to anyone, so anyone can walk down a street and spraypaint something on an adjacent building. The graffiti can be "undone" with a paintbrush stroke, but it's still vandalism, and I am sure law enforcement would be interested in prosecuting such vandals. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 17:34, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::There is a big differnce between the two. Vandalsim of a building results in the loss of something with monetary value (ie, you must pay someone to clean or paint over it) whereas nothing of serious value is lost in the reverting of wiki vandalsim. Also, a building does not encourage the average person to contribute to it's design and decoration. I would like to see the statute Wiki vandalism would be covered under. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: Well, with what would the offender be charged? Not with hacking or trespassing, surely, because anyone can set up an account. If they were prosecuted for vandalism, the judge must take into consideration the seriousness of the damage caused and the cost of repairing it. In the case of wikis, vandalism can be reverted within seconds of being discovered with minimal effort. Isn't the time of the law enforcers better spent on more serious crimes? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: "Monetary value" should not be the only criterion in determining whether something is vandalism or not. Just because the editors at Conservapedia are volunteers doesn't mean it's ok to desecrate their work. Also, consider this analogy - if I went to a National Park and started chopping down vegetation, don't you think law enforcements (and environmentalists!) would be after me? The vegetation I destroyed doesn't have any monetary value. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 18:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::To nitpick, given the high price of energy, you could make a profit by selling the wood you chopped... Joking aside, I agree. Let's also not forget the educational value of Conservapedia. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 19:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The issue isn't monetary damage so much as the fact that Conservapedia gives permission for people to make edits here, it even encourages them to. As long as the edits themselves are not illegal (no libel or threats) the law does not differentiate between liberal and conservative edits, or true or untrue edits, or sensical or nonsensical edits, or edits the powers that be approve of and ones they disapprove of. That all comes down to the rules the site sets up, and the law is not going to enforce an website's rules for them. As long as this remains an open wiki there is no legal action that can be taken against any editor. They are not hacking into a closed system. [[User:Reynard|Reynard]] 09:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Users vandalizing Conservapedia in the past have been reported to the FBI. If I'm not mistaken, the FBI cracked down on them pretty harshly. [[User:Jimmyjohn|Jimmyjohn]] 10:25, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You ''are'' mistaken. [[User:Reynard|Reynard]] 10:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) DRamon, you are also mistaken. You would be prosecuted if you went around cutting down trees in parks, but that would be prosecuted for damage to and destruction of federal property (assuming it was a National Park) and not vandalsim. However, your actions could be considered vandalism, as the park employees (or other hired labor) would have to come in and try to repair what you've done (clear the stump, redo the landscaping and such) [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::As far as the FBI goes, there was some huffing and puffing by sysops on this site and threats of reporting vandals to the FBI. It seems that either CP did report the vandalism, and the FBI choose to do nothing (because a crime had not been committed), or that the sysops were merely bluffing. I suspect it is the latter. There is an enormous difference between signing up and making entries on a wiki, and breaking into someone's email or computer by circumventing security protocols.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:52, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Sigh. It kind of makes me laugh that all of you care so much about stuff that does absolutely nothing to affect anyone's life. Listen: Computer vandalism is not like famine, war or violent crime, which if left unchecked might lead to your plane getting spit-balled out of the sky by an RPG (or something). It should not present a moral crisis to anyone. Belief in vandalism is kind of fascistic, after all. Who's to say only one organism in the world can enjoy something, just because he traded some mashed-up-tree money for it? I'd really like to know. [[User:Redoubt|Redoubt]] 18:00, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are "Saxplayer" and "Redoubt" planning careers as public school teachers? They'd fit in well. The public school mindset of {morality is what you want it to be, and trespassing against others is OK if you want it to be} is implicit in the above two comments.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::No, not planning a career as a teacher "Aschlafly." Merely stating fact. If I recall correctly, you did perhaps the most huffing and puffing about calling the FBI. What happened? Where are they? Vandalism on CP seems to continue unabated.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 18:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: That seems uncalled for Aschlafly. Public schools do ''not'' teach that trespassing is OK. It's against the law and that's that. If an individual trespasses, it's their own fault, and no public school is going to turn them into criminals. I don't know about the background to this FBI story, but the suggestion above is that this site reported editors to the FBI? If so, that seems like a profound waste of the taxpayers money and time, as this site is a wiki and you have no barrier to entry? I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, but did they do any permanent damage to any data? Were files erased? Couldn't you just have clicked 'Undo'? Basically, what happened - it's not clear from what's mentioned here? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, Andy. I'm going to fail as a teacher and start an online encyclopedia called Vandalpedia. [[User:Redoubt|Redoubt]] 18:19, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Ah, Redoubt has wit! As BenHur stated, vandalism here had no lasting impact and was quickly undone. --[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 18:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Sorry to see Redoubt blocked. I guess wit is not always welcome--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 18:23, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: "Redoubt" fails as a comedian also. "Saxplayer", you're not adding much value either, with your apparent approval of vandalism. You may want to spend your time on a site that welcomes it. We do not. We're here to learn, not operate a day care center for the easily amused and morally confused.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

BenHur, you are correct that schools don't teach that trespassing is okay. But Aschlafly's point, regardless of how well he put it, is that government schools teach relative morality, rather than an absolute morality. With relative morality, right and wrong is a matter of opinion, so such things as saying that trespass is okay become possible.

I haven't gotten involved with the FBI stuff, but suffice to say that I believe that the FBI has not been contacted for run-of-the-mill vandalism.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

: I guess I am guilty of terrible gullibility then!! - I fell for Jimmyjohn and Saxplayer's allegations above. Stupid me. So the FBI story is nonsense then? Good, I'm glad to hear it. Sorry if I cast aspersions on CP. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

== Superior Australia ==
Here can you add this[http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/leading-the-world-leader-20080921-4kyb.html?page=1] as a front page news article. Its all about how Australia is leading the USA in many aspects, its really interesting and very relevant in the current political climate. Cheers--[[User:Lamb12|Lamb12]] 19:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:Speaking of Australia, John McCain has today written an [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24386491-7583,00.html excellent piece] in our main national newspaper, The Australian. He talks about America and Australia's shared history, the war in [[Iraq]], [[Free trade]], [[Environmentalism]], and the [[War on Terror]]. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 09:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:The Age opinion piece is typical left-wing claptrap. About the only things that it claims Australia "leads" America on are things where the writer has an ''ideological'' preference for the way Australia does it. It's not like saying Australia produces more oranges per capita than America—that would be an objective comparison; it's like saying that Australia produces oranges and America produces plums, and therefore Australia leads America because oranges are nicer! That's totally subjective. I call it left-wing claptrap because it starts with the ''presumption'' that the left's view of things is the right one, and argues on the basis of that presumption, with no attempt to show that their presumption is the right one. (And yes, some conservatives argue the same way, but it appears par for the course on the left.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::That opinion piece was particularly shallow and vacuous - even for The Age. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Mouse-Insulin Experiment News==

Thanks to Jpatt for submitting this - it's wonderful news, and encouraging for people like me who have relatives with diabetes. We could use more stories like this on the Main Page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Julius Rosenberg? ==

To the best of my knowledge, it has been common knowledge for an extremely long time, even by liberals, that Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union (he didn't give them anything useful, but he still tried to commit treason). The article linked does not discuss this supposed "liberal deceit", as liberals have admitted this for some time, nor does it mention the conservative deceit (it is well-known that Ethel, Julius' wife who was also executed, had basically nothing to do with the espionage and testimony implicating her was brought on under pressure by shady prosecutors). Nor does the front page mention the thing which actually IS interesting about the article, that Morton Sobell admitted to being a spy (it HAS been a widely-held belief among liberals and some conservatives that he wasn't, and in any case the evidence was shaky at best).

Little failures of reading comprehension like this are a black mark on this website's reputation. I would have reported this sooner had I not been capriciously blocked. (Makes you think... maybe accuracy should be more important than ideological posturing.) [[User:Egen|Egen]] 18:33, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:I look at this website and see many things that are not right. I try to change but page is locked or someone change my edits. This website needs much work to be very good. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 09:38, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

== Conservative guru George Will: McCain "not suited to the Presidency"==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

This might have been a good article to post here during the primaries, but the site's tone has become more pro-McCain since then. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Danish schools and evolution ==

I found an interesting [http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10345/Default.aspx article] today that explains an upcoming [[Danish]] school program that although unquestionably secular in nature, will at least
"give pupils an opportunity to critically examine views contrary to Darwinian evolution, for example Intelligent Design and biblical Creationism."
It's unfortunate that American schools can't be as open-minded. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 10:57, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
: It's unfortunate that we have got to the state that we think that this tiny concession counts as being "open minded"! Clearly, the program will be reinforcing the view that evolution is Truth and creation is not scientific, and have co-opted the "[[useful idiot]]s" of the church to help with that. But admittedly, it does appear to be a tad better than some other places, such as America, will allow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:36, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==McCain's Campaign suspension==

Shouldn't McCain's announcement that he's suspending his campaign to address the financial crisis be a News headline? It seems both relevant and significant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:31, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:DinsdaleP - I think it's clear that this isn't really intended to be a proper 'News' page - you'll see my section above about this, the most critical news story in America's recent history, has been utterly ignored, and the only person who commented was an Australian editor. If American ''conservatives'' aren't interested in the total financial meltdown of their nation's economy, God help all of us. It's clear the Main Page News doesn't reflect the world you, I, or the vast majority of others live in, but instead the fanatical obsessions of literally a handful of single-issue obsessed individuals. It's a disgrace, and I think they should stop calling the section 'In The News'. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 11:47, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

==Biden's History Gaffes==

If we're going to make gaffe's like Biden's the standard for newsworthiness, then let's focus on gaffes involving relevant current events and not just history:

*Sarah Palin doesn't realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not taxpayer-funded (until the other week at least)
* McCain thinks the President can directly fire the Chairman of the SEC, which he can't
* McCain called the fundamentals of the economy sound, and then had to narrowly redefine what he meant by "fundamentals" since we're in the midst of a crisis of fundamental liquidity and solvency
* McCain considers the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to be a regulatory agency, which it is not

My point isn't to be glib, or to actually advocate reporting McCain/Palin gaffes too. (btw - I chose actual misunderstandings as opposed to simple slips like McCain referring to the Iraq/Afghanistan border, or referring to the FEC when he meant the SEC). It's just that when there's real news to be reported, it demeans this site to post "news" stories about non-conservatives that make a big deal about minor mistakes, while pretending that mistakes are not made by conservatives too. To paraphrase Aschlafly, let's just have the New section focus on substantive issues, please. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:I have to ask - what made Biden's statements change from "errors" to "lies". --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::He's a democrat, of course.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 11:21, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Biden is now claiming that he never introduced a piece of legislation that would've split Iraq into three sections for Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. [http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/figures-media-ignores-bidens-outright.html] So, yes, he does lie about history - especially his own. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:19, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:I just thumbed through the text of the amendment, and the only thing I can see is that it calls for Iraq to maintain unity. It identifies "Kurdistan" as a largely peaceful and stable area. It ''does'' call for the Iraqi parliament to "create federal regions," though it does not specify how those regions should be determined. It makes no mention of the nationality of those regions. It did pass with an overwhelming majority of the senate by a vote of 75-23. I'm sure much of the amendment was discussed on the floor of the Senate, and that's where the nationality issue comes up. The text of the amendment in question can be found [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110io3qcK:e406967: here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:48, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:I was asking why the comments in the "News" story about Biden's gaffes regarding FDR, the Depression and television were changes to portray them as lies versus mistakes. It takes intent to lie, so where is the proof that Biden was intentionally lying ''in this case'' (the Iraq legislation is a different matter. To accuse someone of lying without proof is deceitful. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::''To accuse someone of lying without proof is deceitful.'' I completely agree. An accusation of lying is serious business, and should only be done with proof that the statement was untrue and that it was intended to mislead. We all misspeak sometimes, especially as we get older. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Since there has been no direct response from Aschlafly to my point, I will restate it respectfully but directly. If you have no verifiable proof that Biden was deliberately lying in his comments about FDR, the Depression and television in the News story above, then the accusation that he was deliberately lying needs to be retracted. If they stay without proof, then this is a case of deliberate deceit for ideological purposes, and it's wrong. ''(Request to others with Block rights - if you take offense at my objection, it is Aschlafly's place to block me over it, not anyone elses, because all I'm asking for is truthfulness.)'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== FInland and gun control ==

After the latest [http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080925/ap_on_re_eu/eu_finland_school_shooting school shootings in Finland], [[liberals]] are clamoring to claim that it's an example of why there should be stricter gun control. But they fail to see that it's quite the opposite. People say that Finland has very little gun control, but that's not entirely true - in fact, carrying firearms in public places is prohibited. Hence it was illegal for anyone at the school - including teachers - to have a gun on them for defense. If some people had guns, perhaps they would have been able to confront the shooter and there would have been fewer victims. More gun control won't solve the problem - it won't stop a future school shooter.
--[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 13:33, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
: Perhaps you are right that if some people had guns they would have been able to confront the shooter and reduces the casualties. But you can't say with certainty that more gun control won't solve the problem. ''If'' it stops future potential shooters from getting guns, then it ''will'' solve the problem. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
::That's naive, and DRamon is quite correct. Criminals and terrorists will always get guns. True safety involves the good guys having guns, too. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, they won't "always" get guns. If nobody has guns, where do the criminals get them from? Yes, that's a ''bit'' simplistic, but no more so than your comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That's an extraordinary remark. The UK is awash with guns - in criminal circles. They get them illegally imported, they get them converted from 'fake' or deactivated firearms,. they are stolen from licenced users. The only ones without guns are the law-abiding. I can't imagine that Australia is much different. And attempting to completely remove guns from as gun-conscious a nation as Finland beggars imagination - there will be so many missed that a nice little pool will remian for criminals. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, Australia is not awash with guns. Perhaps our enforcement, border security, and customs are more effective than yours? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Just fists and boots with Aussie crims, eh? Forgive me for feeling rather cynical about your assertion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:54, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: And forgive me for feeling rather cynical about your knowledge of the Australian situation, plus your (lack of) imagination to think that if they don't have gun, there's nothing else they could possibly use but fists and boots. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Eh, there's evidence on both sides of the fence on this one. Switzerland is a nation that most conservatives point to as the success of arming the citizenry, and Japan is a nation that many liberals point to as gun control working. Both nations have low crime rates—for the record, both nations have seen a spike in crime in the last decade. I wish I still had the paper I wrote for Judicial Behavior 301 because I had evidence that supported both sides very concisely. There's just really no definitive evidence either way. I hate to sound wishy-washy here, but I think that's just the bottom line. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your bottom line, then, negates the false liberal claim that gun control would reduce crime. Indeed, liberals support gun control for a reason having nothing to do with crime: they like to shift power from individuals to the government. Liberals who promote gun control should at least admit that as their motivation, given that the evidence (and logic) does not support their claims about crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Japan's First Catholic Leader ==

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but that was [[Oda Nobunaga]]. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:26, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
== Muslim Pronunciation ==

There is no such thing. Islam is not a language. Now, he could be using the Arabic pronunciation, but does that mean anyone who says "e-rok" instead of "i-rak" is a muslim?--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:No-one is suggesting that Islam is a language, and deliberately drawing that inference is insulting and provocative - and distracts - deliberately, perhaps? - from the point made. Try making substantive posts, rather than causing trouble. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::The point being made is that the way Obama pronounces proper nouns the same way a Muslim would, therefore this must be evidence that he is a Muslim. Now, quoted directly from the news story "the Muslim pronunciation"; for there to be a Muslim pronunciation, there would have to be a Muslim language, dialect, or accent. There isn't any, but there is an Arabic language. We know Obama knows how to pronounce Arabic, and seeing as Pakistan is an Arabic country, he was merely pronouncing it ''correctly.'' Now, you can't infer that Obama is a Muslim because he says Arabic words properly, without saying anyone who speaks Arabic words properly could be a Muslim. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 10:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::''for there to be a Muslim pronunciation, there would have to be a Muslim language, dialect, or accent''. In [[Northern Ireland]], certain words are spoken differently by the [[Catholic]] and [[Protestant]] communities. The letter H, for example, is called 'aitch' by Protestants and 'haitch' by Catholics. Yet there are no such things as 'Protestant language' or 'Catholic language'. Your argument fails.
:::''Now, you can't infer that Obama is a Muslim because he says Arabic words properly, without saying anyone who speaks Arabic words properly could be a Muslim''. I would agree wholeheartedly that anyone who speaks Arabic words correctly could be a Muslim. Why on earth would anyone not? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:I pronounce Cuba "coups-bah" which is how it is pronounced in Spanish, not the standard American "cue-bah." I also pronounce Castro "Kah-strow" as opposed to "Cah-strow." Does that make me a communist from Cuba? Come on, seriously, of all the things said in the debate, you want to focus on how Obama said Pakistan? He pronounced it correctly in the way it was meant to be said. If someone calls the language of Iran Farsi instead of Persian (Farsi being the Farsi/Persian word for their language) does that make them an Iranian sleeper cell? Does McCain's inability to say Ahmadinejad mean he doesn't know enough about him? No of course not. If you want to criticize Obama's performance, by all means do so. That is the point of debates, to open the forum to questions and close examination of policy, but must we look at such stupid things as pronunciation? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:50, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::From Bugler's statement above: "I would agree wholeheartedly that anyone who speaks Arabic words correctly could be a Muslim. Why on earth would anyone not?" The same could be said for ANYTHING. If I pronounce radium right, does that mean my last name is Curie? Nope. But, seriously IanG and AndrasK, this isn't going to be changed. Anyone who looks at that right away and doesn't feel uneasy about the way it's portrayed on the Main Page isn't going to look for this discussion and see all the reasonable points you've both put forward. I've lobbied a couple times before to fundamentally clean up the tenor of the News section, but they always get reverted, expunged from my lists of contributions, and I get banned as a "troll" (I pronounce it "trawl" so I don't get accused of being one). But keep up the fight. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:06, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You'll notice that the featured article, on Sarah Palin, also gives pronunciation tips on her last name. I know Conservapedia promotes American English spellings (color instead of colour), but, and I really do not mean this in a parodic way, does it promote certain pronunciations, and should these be included in some kind of list? [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:32, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: You know, I thought that IanG's argument was pretty good, until I read Bugler's response about Catholic vs. Protestant pronunciations of "H". Bugler is correct on that particular point: You ''could'' have a Muslim pronunciation of something without there being a Muslim language. However, the letter "H" is about the ''only'' Catholic/Protestant difference that I'm aware of, but I'm aware of ''many'' variations in pronunciation related to nationality or etc. So the real question is not whether there ''could be'' a Muslim pronunciation (there ''is'' a small chance of that), but whether there ''is'' a Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan. That ''most'' variations in pronunciation apparently have nothing to do with religion would put the onus on the person making the claim to show that it ''is'' a Muslim pronunciation. Does anyone (especially Andy or Bugler) have any evidence of that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

This just in: if y'all actually knew anything about Islam you'd realize that all of the 1 billion Muslims on earth are trained at an early age to pronounce everything a certain way. Converts are taught these things. You see, there must be a Muslim pronunciation of things, because Obama pronounces things differently, and he's a Muslim... [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 11:46, 27 September 2008 (EDT) P.S.- This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the Conservapedia news page.

:::: Then you haven't been around long.--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 13:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

''In the debate, Barack Obama repeatedly used the Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan": "Pokiston".'' Obama repeatedly used the most ''correct'' pronunciation of ''Pakistan'', that is, the one that most Pakistanis would use. But why is this news? Are we trying to say that Obama has better foreign relations skills than McCain? That's a strange thing for Conservapedia to highlight. Just because McCain doesn't pronounce Pakistan properly doesn't mean he's not as good at foreign relations as Obama. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:56, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: According to Merriam-Webster, there are two generally-accepted pronunciations: "Pack-uh-stan" and "Paw-key-ston". He kind of mixed the two. How does he pronounce Tanzania? Or what about those politicians who are out of touch with the common man, and insist on calling it "America" instead of "murka"? Language is so mutable and ever-changing (you know the founding fathers used that wierd looking f thing instead of the letter S, right? why don't we follow THAT rule?) that we really can't establish rules for how things should be said, otherwise we're enforcing right-wing political correctness. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

First, there is no "Muslim" pronunciation of anything. It is not a language. There are Muslims who, like Christians and members of many other religions, are native speakers of many different languages. The pronunciation to which you refer is closer to the pronunciation of "Pakistan" that would be heard in its own part of the world. If anything, Americanized pronunciations of it are less correct than their own. Your point seems to be to paint Obama as a Muslim by using a more-correct pronunciation of the country's name to tie him to Islam. He is not a Muslim and the way he pronounces the name of Pakistan has no bearing on his allegiances to any religion or any country. If anything, his sensitivity to a more correct pronunciation of Pakistan underscores his generally very high level of education and awareness of global issues. [[User: Cplantin|Cplantin]] 12:34, 26 SEPTEMBER 2008 (CDT)

:BTW, to correct a error a few people have said--Pakistan is not an Arab country and "Pakistan" is not an Arabic word. The national language of Pakistan is Urdu. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 13:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::I stand corrected, yet my main point doesn't change. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 14:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

This does seem like a completely absurd thesis. Everyone used to refer to the capital of China as Peking - now it's universally known as Beijing. There were no complaints that we were all suddenly being propagandists for the Red Menace, was there? I wonder how Aschlafly would have us pronounce Valladolid? Or Timisoara? Foreign placenames are usually best pronounced as their own people pronounce them - it's not only a sign of respect, it's also a refusal to be ignorant about the world. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:55, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I don't think the statement on the front page is saying "Obama is a muslim because of how he pronounces the word Pakistan." It's merely pointing out how he pronounces it, providing another piece to the puzzle (we already know of dozens of instances like this, where Obama does or says something that suggests he is a muslim). You're free to interpret all this evidence as you wish, but to a lot of us here it's pretty clear what it points at. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:42, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if Barack Obama was a Muslim, would it really matter? Would it really affect his ability to lead the US? Is there something in the Constitution that says Muslims, or Non-Christians or whatever can't run for Office? [[User:Liberalnproud|Liberalnproud]]

- ''Even if Barack Obama was a Muslim, would it really matter? Would it really affect his ability to lead the US?'' But if he were, and he lied about it all along - that WOULD matter. Greatly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, don't forget about the principle of [[Al Takeyya]] in Islam. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 17:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Thanks, DR: that speaks volumes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: FWIW, I have known several Christian Pakistanis over the years, and they have all pronounced it "pockistan." There is no "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan any more than there is a "Christian" pronunciation of "France." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is correct pronunciation bad? I'm a bit confused by this. --[[User:ThePositronicMan|ThePositronicMan]] 17:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
: ThePositronicMan was blocked for making the above comment. I cannot fathom why. He made a number of positive, substantive edits, and asked the above question in good faith. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT

Why would he lie about his religion, Bugler? As I understand it from my religious friends, faith is something to be proud of, something worn as a badge of honour. It really wouldn't serve his campaign at all to keep his religion under wraps, and I'm sure something much more concrete than 'oh, he pronounces 'Pakistan' differently from me' would've have come up by now, if he was a Muslim. There'll be thousands of journalists all over the world, trying to dig up dirt on him. I still don't see how his religion is at all important. Does the US Constitution prohibit non-Christians from running for Office? [[User:Liberalnproud|Liberalnproud]]
::Read [[Al Takeyya]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:57, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: Hypothetically, he would lie about his religion if he thought that being truthful about it would harm his political chances. And his religion ''is'' important because religious beliefs define who we are, including things such as honesty and integrity, so a person's worldview/philosophies/religion ''is'' important. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::two responses to this... First, to Bugler, where did you find this particular rule (Al Takeyya that is) I attempted to follow the link, but my school has it blocked as a hate site and I could find no other mention of anything close to this except fringe blogs... Where is this discussed and who approves it's use? Next, to Phillip, I must disagree that someone's religion defines who they are. There are numerous examples of people throughout history who claim one religion, but break the most basic tenets of it. I would also add that I am not religious, but I have no problems with honesty or integrity, If I may say without seeming brash. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::: I didn't say that someone's "religion" defines who they are. I said their "religious beliefs" define who they are. Many people who claim to belong to a particular religion don't follow all the tenets of that religion, but selected ones, and differ in other points. Some adopt some beliefs of some religions and some beliefs of other religions. Some adopt some beliefs of a religion, but have their own personal beliefs about some points. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:24, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: As Philip says, religious beliefs certainly do define who someone is. In fact, they are a better predictor of actions (including political actions) than anything else. Am I talking about whether someone says he belongs to a particular church? No, of course not. I'm talking about what someone ''believes''. And since Obama is not forthcoming or consistent about his real beliefs, voters have to figure it out from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Must be addressed==

Okay, you're all going to have to forgive me for this, because I need to know something about the mission that Conservapedia has given to itself, and if I put this on the specific pages mentioned, it will get breezed over or, worse, never read/replied to. At least here it might be exposed to more readers and more intelligent answers. Is this supposed to be a '''Conservative''' encyclopedia, or a '''Christian''' encyclopedia? Yeah, yeah, I get it: Use a metaphor comparing it to a Venn-Diagram. No, that's not going to help. Why is it that the Jesus article states right off the bat that "Jesus Christ '''is''' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah who, at the appropriate time, was sent by his Father..."? WHAT? If this is a conservative website, which the name would lead me to believe that it is, then why does it only endorse one religion? This seems to conflict with LOTS of things going on here. How can an encyclopedia promote Christianity as fact but then say that Darwinism isn't? I'm not seeking an evolution vs. creationism debate. Don't start one. It's merely a blatant example of something I see a lot of.

What evidence is there for Christianity. How can you have an encyclopedia quoting the Bible, not merely to give examples of it's diction/content/format, but as evidence for support, and then say that there are news sources today that are too liberal? That doesn't seem like a conflict in scrutiny? There are news stories today that get fact-checked, examined and analyzed thousands of times and you still accuse them of being "flimsy at best". How does arbitrary Bible-adherence-for-the-sake-of-tradition have any more integrity than that? Or is their a shelf life now past which something becomes irrefutable? I really enjoy Conservapedia, and I'm not some rabble-rousing troll. I just want intelligent answers to this so my future contributions can be in line with the tone of this encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:Edited out the minor swearing...if you please, be civil in addressing your comments. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::Harbinger: I think the key issue is defining what exactly "conservative" means. It's a very vague term. To the owners of this wiki, however, it holds a very specific meaning: Christian, ascribing to traditional 19th and early 20th century moral values, creationist, nationalistic, etc. That's certainly not the only possible definition of the term "conservative" -- some atheists would describe themselves as conservative in at least some senses. But it's the dominant definition applied here. As to evidence of Christianity, the primary evidence put forward by Christians is typically historical (premised on the reliability of the histories recorded in the Bible) and experiential (their own personal experiences of faith). If you credit those forms of evidence, Christianity appears reasonable. If you discount those those forms of evidence, Christianity appears unreasonable. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:46, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Harbinger, Ungtss has provided a good answer, and my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] will take that a bit further. As for evidence for Christianity, that's a rather vague question, but see [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html here] for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Harbinger, you are clearly a moron. Acting as if the Bible and Conservapedia are one in the same and using perceived flaws with both to condemn the other is epitome of idiocy, and it has no place here. Besides, don't these arbitrary rants deserve some kind of block? Have fun on Wikipedia. [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 16:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Since when is namecalling good etiquette? That attitude is deplorable. PJR answered him reasonably and the issue was dropped. Your insults were uncalled for.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

PCarson was blocked; not only was he a repeat troll, but he was also Harbinger as well as a few others. Basically he called himself a moron. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain with work to do ==

According to the betting market, McCain has some work to do if he is to win the election. His probability of winning has fallen back to 37.5%. Will the first debate cause that to change? Update [[User:Ferret/ElectionOdds|here]]. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 18:10, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pokiston ==

This is insulting. There is no "Muslim" way to pronounce a word. There is a "normal person who does not particularly care about pronouncing it correctly" pronunciation ("paakistaan") and a "correct" pronunciation ("pokiston"). Note that Obama also uses the decidedly non-Muslim way to pronounce "Muslim" (Muhzlim, not Mooslim) and "Islam" (Izlam, not Islam). I guess by this logic, those two things are absolute proof that he's not a Muslim.

Whoever wrote this non-newsworthy and insulting entry should be scrubbed of their ability to update the front page. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your feigned outrage only underscores the need for pointing out how Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan, rather than the English one. Learn some history and realize that Pakistan is a Muslim word that, of course, has a corresponding Muslim pronunciation. Obama uses it, probably as he was taught.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, do you use the city name ''Beijing''? Or do you use ''Peking''? If the former, by your argument, you are speaking Chinese. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, do you really mean it is a ''Muslim'' word? What do you mean by that? I thought (and I'm no expert) that Urdu was the main language amongst the Pakistani population. Do you mean that Obama used the Urdu pronunciation? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 23:19, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Australians use many Aboriginal words. If they pronounce them the way that the Aborigines pronounce them, rather than some Anglicised pronunciation, then that does not make the user Aboriginal, nor a follower of Aboriginal religions. Rather, it means that they use the ''correct'' pronunciation. So if "Pakistan" is a Muslim word, then the "Muslim translation" would surely be, by definition, the ''correct'' pronunciation. Which means that the Main Page might as well say that Obama repeatedly used the ''correct'' pronunciation. This is pointless, so I'm removing it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see what the issue is here? What's wrong with pronouncing a word in its original language? Doing so is a sign of respect to that language. It'd be absolutely embarrassing for anyone, especially a high-level government official, to pronounce all foreign words (and more importantly, _names_) in forced English pronunciation. I support PJR's removal of this markedly non-issue blown out of proportion by selected members of this site. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 23:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

===Protest at censorship by PJR===
I protest Philip J. Rayment's arrogant and high handed action in unilaterally deleting this item. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: I asked you and Andy for evidence that there was such a thing as a Muslim pronunciation in this case. You offered nothing. Andy's only offering amounted to saying that the pronunciation was the correct one. I protest your protestation that ignores the evidence and tries to make me the villain simply because I removed something the evidence didn't support. Or don't the facts matter to you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Never mind the evidence: what about the issues of ''courtesy'' to the Leader of this project, and of your taking it upon yourself to censor opinion. And don't you dare try and shift the blame onto me with your implication that ''I'' was somehow specifically asked for evidence and that ''I'' somehow failed to provide this. The whole issue had nothing to do with me personally; it was Mr Schlafly's edit that you have censored. That is an insidious way of trying to shift the blame for this disgraceful episode onto me. It is not me that is at fault. It is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: "Never mind the evidence"? Well, that about sums it up, I guess. And what lack of courtesy are you talking about? I give Andy opportunity to provide supportive evidence? What is discourteous about that? It was no "implication" that ''you'' were "somehow specifically asked for evidence": I ''specifically'' did ask you[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=524721&oldid=524714], because you defended the item. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: P.S. What about ''your'' "arrogant and high handed action in unilaterally deleting ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=525290 this]'' item"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, well. You appear to have been studying [[Liberal tricks]] to some benefit. Why not introduce a completely irrelevant issue to divert attention from your own manifest shortcomings! For your information, I removed Fishal's piece of vandalism because it was a gratuitous, irrelevant and immature insult to the US Head of State. Please try and stick to the points at issue. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not completely irrelevant: it is the same sort of situation. You justify your unilateral action on the basis of it being justified, but for my case you ignore the justification and accuse me simply for doing it. That is a double standard. And ''that'' was my point in asking it. And by the way, I try to stay away from those Liberal ______ pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::::''That is a double standard'' And that is what psychologists call 'projection'. And you are still trying to avoid the main issue by attempting to divert onto a discussion of ''my'' supposed shortcomings (see Luke 6:41, by the way) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''It is not completely irrelevant: it is the same sort of situation'' So: you see an immature insult by a vandal and the thoughtful addition of a newsworthy insight by Andrew Schlafly as being in the same category. Interesting. And you continue to avoid answering on the courtesy issue. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: No, I'm not trying to "divert" onto another issue. I'm trying to point out that, by your own admission, you agree with unilateral action ''when you feel it is justified''. Therefore, to be consistent, you should either agree with what I did, or explain why it was not justified. The two cases are not exact analogies (no analogies ever are), but that there was "unilateral" deletion is what they have in common, and that is the point that I was comparing. As for the courtesy issue, I didn't ignore it; I asked what was discourteous about what I did. You haven't answered that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::What I just did was dicourteous. Which is exactly what you did to Andy. I must say, I didn't expect to have to actually demonstrate what discourtesy is, but I suppose you are Australian. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:43, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Wow, way to be blatantly racist, Bugler.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I assume, Bugler, that your "What I just did" was your (deliberate) replacement of my comment (since reinstated) with your own. First, I wasn't asking for a definition or example of discourteousness, but an explanation of ''how'' I was discourteous. Second, editing or removing someone's ''personal'' talk-page comment is "discourteous" (if you want to call it that), but editing (which includes removing) an ''article'' or similar edit, which is not a ''personal'' comment, is not discourteous, but par for the course on a Wiki. So your analogy is invalid. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
''I didn't expect to have to actually demonstrate what discourtesy is, but I suppose you are Australian.'' Well said, we Australian's don't know the meaning of discouteous because we are a naturally eloquent and fraternal people.
On the topic at hand (rather than Bugler's bungled racism);is the situation at hand actually a case where one contributor has been accused of censorship by another purely because he removed an invalid news article (keeping in mind that the news article itself has been admitted ''Never mind the evidence''as being worthy of removal)? If so, then so perhaps a certain contributor should quit the bugling, and the racism, and the ad hominem arguments against Phil (keeping in mind that he's one of the more logical and fair people on this rather controversial site), and get back to contributing to the site. Having said that, I myself am awaiting the sweet kiss of death in the form of a 90/10, but couldn't help piping up. {{unsigned|Scholl}}
: If it's interesting to anyone, this issue led me to figure out what exactly the "Pak" in "Pakistan" is. It's Paak (pronounced pock, obviously) -- Urdu for "Pure." Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure" in Urdu. Equivalent to having "Righteousness City" or "Republic of Holiness." Very interesting. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:22, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Reminder that John McCain uses the "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan as well, and I believe I've heard him use the "Muslim" pronunciation of Iran. Why aren't these also mentioned on the front page? Among other people I've also heard several CNN anchors and Karl Rove himself use the "Muslim" pronunciation of Pakistan. Is United States cable news just swimming with stealth Muslims? Seriously, there is absolutely no way this item was newsworthy and PJR was right to remove it. --[[User:Egen|Egen]] 14:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I didn't want to get involved, but I have to disagree here. I watched the debate. If anything McCain was pronouncing Pakistan as "Pahkistaahn" with emphasis on the last syllable and a's as in "apple". Nor do I remember him saying "Eeron" instead of "I-ran". Now if he was in those countries, I'm sure he would use their pronunciation (when in Rome, do as the Romans do). But he is communicating with the American people and so he's going to use the American pronunciation. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:03, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's [[Evolution]] Article is Climbing Up the Search Engine Rankings ==

[[Image:Momentum.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Conservapedia's evolution article has momentum!]]
Conservapedia's [[evolution]] article has been climbing up the search engine rankings. The evolution article article has momentum and will likely continue to improve its search engine rankings. The history of Conservapedia articles that have become more popular among conservatives and more well known by liberals strongly suggest that Conservapedia article will likely keep climbing up the search engine rankings. The Conservapedia evolution article will likely see a significant uptick in traffic. Given that the evolutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States which is one of the scientific powerhouses of the world, the Conservapedia article gaining more and more exposure certainly is not helpful in regards to evolutionists propagating their evolutionary dogma on the internet.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:10, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Why did you remove the Hitler picture from the start of the article?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::British cons, I don't blame you for asking the reason as there surely was a reason, however, I hope you don't mind me not telling you the reason as you are on the other side of the creation-evolution aisle. Although I certainly do not agree with everything Sun Tzu wrote in his work ''The Art of War'', I certainly believe that the principles of outwitting opponents through "speed, '''stealth, flexibility,''' and a minimum of effort" have their place. [http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Tzu-Art-History-Warfare/dp/081331951X] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::::OK, your decision of course. But ..... am I to understand that if an anti-evolutionist were to ask in public you'd tell them why the picture was removed?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCbkVPP0hvg&NR=1 British cons, are you aware of what happened to the atheism article as far as the search engine ranking results? I am glad to see the same thing is happening to Conservapedia's evolution article.] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:21, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin and Feminism==
''Palinism’s Threat to Feminism: "Sarah Palin is everything they hate, because she is everything they never could be or chose not to be. There is a new type of woman out there who can juggle both a family and a career."'' My impression is that Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist. She has been a member of "Feminists for Life"<ref>[http://www.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/183895.html]</ref>, she spoke positively about shattering the glass ceiling, she has referred to herself as a "product of Title IX"<ref>[http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/2441/palin-says-she-is-a-product-of-title-ix]</ref>. While she is pro-life, she has referred to her decision to keep her Downs baby as her "choice", and her daughter's decision to keep her baby, as her "choice". How can she be a threat to feminism if she is a feminist, albeit a pro-life one? And why does the author think that feminists have "chosen a barren existence, in the name of a movement"? In addition, since when are conservatives promoting the idea that mothers of small children should take on high-pressure jobs that require long hours and lots of travel? Sarah Palin may be a role model in some ways. But the idea that she somehow "can juggle both a family and a career" is an insult to those moms who have turned down opportunities because they felt that they were needed at home, at least while their children were small. If Mrs. Palin gets the job, she will have to settle for "quality time" rather than "quantity time" with her two young children. The two are not the same. Let's be careful about the message we are sending. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Update: Katie Couric asked Palin whether she considered herself a feminist. Palin answered "I do". <ref>[]</ref> Since Palin is a feminist, this front-page Conservapedia entry simply doesn't make sense - Palin isn't "everything feminists hate" - she is a feminist herself. I think we should remove this entry, as it is clearly not based on the facts. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:40, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:: All the leading feminists are harshly critical of Palin. The leading feminists do say that Palin is everything they hate, starting with Palin being pro-life and extending to other issues also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Would most other feminists consider her a feminist? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT) P.S. This was directed at Hsmom, not realising that Andy had added a comment.

::: Though not directed at me, the answer to Philip's question is obviously "no". In fact, most leading feminists today would scoff at the suggestion that Palin is a feminist. It would be as though Biden claimed to be "pro-life", which would be greeted by sarcasm from anyone knowledgeable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The feminists' viewpoint that I've read/heard is, yes, Palin is everything they dislike, but not because she "isn't" a feminist, or even female; it's because she's pro-life and conservative. But those same feminists state up front that since she's chosen a career and a family, and is successful at both, she "is" also a feminist. Feminists argue amongst themselves frequently about abortion, prayer in schools, home-schooling, whether mothers of toddlers should take time out of work, etc. etc. The working definition of "feminist" is one who believes that women are empowered equally to men in making their own choices for their lives and that women should be paid equally with men for equal work. The great majority of feminists also hold mostly liberal views on everything else, but, believe it or not, many younger feminists are conservatives. Palin is a prominent example.--[[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 09:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: If one interprets [[feminism]] to be something other than what the leading feminists believe, then of course Palin could be a feminist. But that word play does not accomplish much. Perhaps Palin is trying to recapture the word for conservative women, or perhaps she's not entirely familiar with what leading feminists in universities and Washington, D.C. believe. No one would fault Palin for that, because what leading feminists believe is incredible. But suffice it to say that leading feminists are pro-abortion, anti-beauty contests, and anti-conservative. Palin is the opposite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:46, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::The real issue here seems to be over the definition of "feminist". Palin considers herself one because of her pursuit of career in balance of her role as a mother, her support of Title IX, which Aschlafly opposes. While she is passionately pro-life, she has also been on-record discussing her decision to have her son Trig as a "choice" and her daughter's "decision on her own" to "keep her baby", so there's an implication that while she's against Roe v. Wade, she thinks about women as making these types of decisions as having choices under the law. I think Leansleft expressed the point that matters well, so I'll second it - a label like "feminist" or "Christian" is used as much to identify what holds people in common as to identify what they differ over. There's an overlap in the positions Plain holds compared to "mainstream" feminists, just as there are between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. Deciding whether Palin is a "true feminist" or not is like debating whether a Catholic is a "true Christian" or not - it's more meaningful to focus less on the label and more on the specific ''issues'' that people like Palin are for or against. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Title IX is a good example. When I went to high school in the 1960s, there were no sports for girls. By the time Palin went to school, she was able to play competitive basketball. An academic feminist might argue that without that sports experience in her formative years, the world today would never know of any "Sarah Barracuda." I'm not an academic feminist and therefore I can't debate the point pro or con; but I strongly suspect that Palin would agree.--[[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 10:24, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's wrong to be focusing on the issue of whether or not Palin can juggle career & family simultaneously in determining whether Palin is a feminist. Some women can do that, others choose not to: feminism exalts the opportunity to choose either lifestyle, so feminism is silent as to whether or not it's good that Palin has chosen that course. There are some worrying anti-feminist trends in Palin's campaign thus far, though.
:First, Andy, your definition of "liberal feminism" is a straw man. No-one seriously argues that feminism is anti-conservative. It's pro-woman, and pro-whatever ideology most helps women gain equality in the workplace and in society. And on that topic, there are significant areas where Palin is [http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story not on board]. As Steinem put it, "she opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality," and it's not just on the area of abortion. More worrying, though, the mere selection of Palin is a little anti-feminist: the assumption that women have to support any female candidate is deeply paternalistic & betrays "a worrying degree of [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/08/30/in-palins-rollout-a-worrying-degree-of-essentialism/ essentialism]," meaning, reduction of women to their gender only. One step forward, perhaps, but several steps back.-[[User:BartonG|BartonG]] 10:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the one hand I would concede that feminism has probably moved on from the most radical viewpoints within it. On the other, I doubt that it's as tame as merely "one who believes that women are empowered equally to men in making their own choices for their lives and that women should be paid equally with men for equal work". But I'm not an expert on it, so I couldn't say either way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Definition of feminism, from Merriam-Webster online: (1) "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" and (2) "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminist] Note lack of statement of beliefs, beyond "equality" and "rights and interests." Dinsdale has nailed it, I think; there are feminists and there are Feminists and there are Feminazis and there are Feminists for Life. Palin is a self-identified feminist, whatever that may or may not mean to her. Other self-identified feminists loudly dislike her, but they are not arguing her self-identification.--[[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 12:13, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-07-01T20:33:58Z

GennaS: /* The Gore Effect */

Here are counterexamples to global warming. Unusually cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal]]s that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

[[Liberal bias]] is severe for this issue: the [[lamestream media]] are far more likely to report on unusually hot weather than unusually cold weather.

(Please feel free to expand.)

== Cold Weather Patterns ==

====Australia====

In spite of predictions, 2011 was a cold year for [[Australia]]. It saw the [http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/24/ipswich-shivers-on-years-coldest-day/ coldest day on record for the east], the [http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/coldest-june-night-on-record-20100628-zdz9.html coldest June on record in the west], the [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html coldest May on record in the north], only *almost* record breaking [http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html in the middle of the country], likewise for the [http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/31/260901_news.html south] and nationally it was [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml the coldest Autumn on record, ever].

Butbutbut global warming! Maybe the west should burn ''more'' fossil fuels to heat things up? Or maybe they can use the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth?

Update: Even SMH, a notoriously Liberal men's magazine, is asking [http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/australia-wakes-to-a-deep-freeze/ "Where's my Global Warming, Dude?"].

====Europe====

They are not alone. The European continent is [http://www.eworldpost.com/europe-is-expected-to-have-the-worst-winter-in-the-last-1000-years-15546.html expected to experience its worse winter in 1,000 years], leaving even the most convinced "global warming" believer to ask "If everything is heating up and we're all going to die in a matter of a few years, why has this winter been so cold!?"

The global-warming alarmist "answer": [http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe/ "It's hotter, therefore it's colder. No really!"]

====South America====

[http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/why-has-this-winter-been-so-cold-in-europe Cold waves in Peru are so bad they have to issue safety warnings about them.]

Tom Rowan from the American Thinker asks, [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=65&linkbox=true&position=7 will 2011 be the year without Summer?]

====Indian Subcontinent and Asia====

Delhi, which is experiencing one of its coldest winters in years, has been hit by thick fog which disrupted flights, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12125207 closed schools] and killed [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438879.stm dozens of people] proving that even the Indian subcontinent is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386 not immune to the cold wave sweeping over the globe for 2011].

Even the BBC, a Liberal media bastion, is [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8439136.stm showing the pictures for all to see]. Is even the mainstream media abandoning "global warming", or is the evidence too much for them to sweep under the rug anymore?

Meanwhile, the Communist and Atheist nation of North Korea (known as the DPRK) is [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/korea/2011/02/02/289892/N-Korea.htm freezing their little Atheist toes off]. The cold is so bad that the river that bysects Pyongyang has frozen over.

The cold appears to be universal, among industrial and non-industrial nations alike. Is it really ''carbon'' causing these events? And why are there no answers from the "global warming" community about the obvious inconsistencies in their theories?

====Central America====

In Mexico the unseasonably cold weather is causing [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3766 significant destruction of crops]. If it's so cold that corn can't survive, why do people keep claiming the planet is warming up?

====Russian Landmass====

Even by Russian standards, severe cold is [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/russian-winter-severe-cold-to-invade-moscow-and-eastern-europe/ going to invade Moscow and Eastern Europe]. Things will get down to near -30°F in Moscow with surrounding areas -40° to -50°F, in a cold snap that will extend all the way east to Siberia.

The famous Russian cold defeated Napoleon's armies, perhaps it will defeat the armies of Al Gore too?

====China====

Chaos in China as a cold snap there [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/05/c_13677854.htm freezes over the highways, raises food price and causes Atheistic toes to curl]. Is there any part of the world actually affected by global warming? Going simply by the law of averages, at least *somewhere* must be getting warmer.

====New Zealand====

[http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=285&linkbox=true New Zealand is hit hard by snowstorms and strong, freezing winds.]

====North America/United States====

Many other record breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years.

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Could [[God]] be trying to tell [[Left Coast]] liberals something?

*In Truckee-Tahoe in the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*Though unreported by the [[lamestream media]], temperatures in [[New Jersey]] at the beginning of July 2011 are about ten degrees below normal.

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

*February 2010, 241-mile Lake Erie was completely frozen over for the first time in 14 years.<ref>http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/NEWS02/302129904</ref>

*Lake Michigan had not frozen over since the 1970s until ... 2009, when it froze over, and then again in 2010 and 2011.

*[[New York City]] had its sixth-largest snowstorm '''''ever''''' on the day after [[Christmas]] in 2010, and the [[liberals]] in charge were unprepared.<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/snow_and_snowstorms/index.html</ref>

*Is it going to [http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=280&linkbox=true snow on the city by the bay?] Where's your scissor lift now, Mister Gore? Perhaps you would prefer a mine shaft?

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Warm weather patterns are fully expected in the absence of [[global warming]], in contrast with unusually cold weather patterns, which would not exist if the world were rapidly and dangerously warming.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize reports of hot weather, but that is utterly ineffective in trying to prove the existence of [[global warming]]. None of warm weather contradicts the fact that record cold temperatures disprove the claim that the world is becoming rapidly and dangerously warmer. All the following would still be expected without [[global warming]]:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of [[global warming]].

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts,<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref> massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message? In light of the global cold snap all around the world, perhaps the message extends beyond Al Gore?

*During the Cancun climate conference, record low temperatures in the low 50s were set on three consecutive days. <ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/</ref>

[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg]]

== See also ==

*http://www.wunderground.com/ (find the temperature in almost any city)
*http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/norms/daily/index.html (extensive historical temperature data at NJ weather stations)
*http://www.surfacestations.org/
*http://wattsupwiththat.com/
*http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

Counterexamples to Global Warming

2011-07-01T00:54:57Z

GennaS: /* Cold Weather Patterns */

Here are counterexamples to global warming. Unusually cold weather disproves the politically motivated claim by [[liberal]]s that the [[Earth]] is rapidly warming.

(Please feel free to expand.)

== Cold Weather Patterns ==
Many record breaking cold temperatures and snowstorms have occurred in the last 10 years.

*About as many snowfalls have occurred in Florida in the past 10 years as in the 100 years before that.

*In the first half of 2011, West Coast temperature have been consistently running at least 10-15 degrees below normal. Could [[God]] be trying to tell [[Left Coast]] liberals something?

*In the second half of June 2011, every day the temperatures have been colder than normal, '''''often nearly 30 degrees below average'''''.<ref>http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTRK/2011/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html</ref>

*In January 2010, "coldest weather in 12 years hits North Texas."<ref>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Coldest-Weather-in-12-Years-Descends-on-North-Texas-80828417.html</ref>

*In early February 2011, snow and ice pummeled Dallas and Houston, Texas, in a nearly unprecedented fashion.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/houston-gripped-by-ice-under-winter-storm-forecast-to-turn-toward-new-york.html?nstrack=sid:5028563|met:104|cat:247|order:1</ref>

==Warm Weather Patterns ==

Conflicting reports of high temperatures illustrate the complexity of understanding what is really going on with the global climate. Since 2010, record ''high'' temperatures have been recorded all around the world. Record high temperatures have been experienced in the following places:

* [http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34756/moscow-breaks-alltime-high-tem.asp?partner=accuweather Moscow]

* [http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/18/tri-cities-area-ties-all-time-record-high-thursday-ar-851560/ Tennessee]

* [http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/syracuses_temperature_sets_his.html Syracuse]

* [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/high-temperatures-hit-records-for-towns-in-oklahoma-arkansas.html Oklahoma]

* [http://www.kwes.com/story/14931869/record-high-temperatures West Texas], [http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-toasted-20-all-time-record-high.html including the all-time record high in Amarillo, TX]

* [http://www.lsureveille.com/news/baton-rouge-facing-record-high-temperatures-1.2601916 Louisiana]

* [http://www.wctv.tv/weather/headlines/105_DEGREES_Tallahassee_Sets_New_All-Time_Record_High_123943144.html Tallahassee]

* [http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/28/52485345.html Western Europe]

* [http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0517/373689.html China]

* [http://lubbockonline.com/sports/2011-06-26/record-temperatures-dont-stop-competitors-ironman South Africa]

What this all means is hard to say, but it certainly indicates that records are being set in both coldest '''and''' warmest temperatures around the planet.

== General Climate Patterns ==

*Although Global warming should be causing massive droughts<ref>http://www.naturalnews.com/020649.html</ref>, massive flooding along the Mississippi river in 2011 has resulted in many deaths as well as billions in property damage.

== The Gore Effect ==
Often, when a climate conference is held, a new record low temperature is set for that location. Maybe [[God]] is trying to send the alarmists a message?

== See also ==

*http://www.surfacestations.org/
*http://wattsupwiththat.com/
*http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Counterexamples]]

User:GennaS

2011-07-01T00:38:29Z

GennaS: stopping the red link to my name...

HI, I'm from Los Angeles, a Mom of two boys, and a wife to a good man.

Talk:Best of the public

2011-06-14T17:30:43Z

GennaS: Clarence Thomas quote is being misunderstood here.

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The funny thing is that while [[Linux]] shows how good The Best of the Public can be, [[Microsoft]] simultaneously shows the other end; being a company that is looked down upon by very many informaticians, while it is generally seen as the best IT company in the world. A closer look on their software, though, shows that their products are of very poor quality, and their programs would probably not be nearly as populair if it wasn't for Microsoft's monopoly in the IT market. [[User:MalP|MalP]]

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting about the Founding Fathers: they tried to ensure the Best of the Public in government. They restricted the franchise to only property owners. This was intended so that only those with intelligence and a work ethic could vote. The point was to ensure that only the best of the public could control government. This was the real check against mobocracy. A mobocracy occurs in anytime time and place where there's universal franchise.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:30, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your fascinating point about how Founders might have viewed the restriction on franchise. But the universal franchise may have made the nation more conservative in many respects. Many [[pro-lifers]], for example, would not have qualified for voting under the Founders' view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.

: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

My point was not that wealth should dictate the franchise, but that there should be qualifications, and I have alternatives to property ownership. Further, if universal franchise made the government more conservative, how do you explain the election of George Bush or Barack Obama. It's obvious that a limited franchise would result in more limited government. Take any nanny state program like social security, universal health care, or free public education, and you find that the wealthy aren't the ones who actually benefit from these programs. Only the poor can stand to benefit from these programs. Take into account also, the way our tax system is set up. The federal tax system, taxes the poor substantially less than the rich. Many Americans pay no taxes at all because they are poor. Why would the wealthy be in favor of a tax system that favors the poor over the rich. So at this point, not only is the tax system redistributing the wealth, but the government is running programs (that no one has any intention of stopping) that give goodies like education and health care to the poor. Now, if the American voters are so conservative, answer this: why does the government favor the poor so much. Better yet, tell me why poor Americans will vote for a flat tax rate, which would increase their taxes. I sincerely doubt that universal franchise has helped, and it's obvious that a qualified voter is always preferable to unqualified voter. Wealth isn't necessarily the ideal qualification, but if only rich people had been voting throughout American history, I doubt we'd have social security. The current problem is that many wealthy people have been taught to accept a particular ideology without question. When you have an open mind, it's hard to deny the wisdom of the Founding Fathers limiting the franchise. The problem is, most people have been taught from their childhood to accept universal franchise unquestionably.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:22, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:Your theory, while ostensibly using logic, doesn't match up with the data: wealthy areas tend to be very liberal. Atheists, who tend to be wealthy, want bigger government to squeeze out charity and religion.

:If wealth were such a factor in political decisions, then why did the socialistic Obama raise far more money than the more conservative McCain? Studies show that church attendance is a better predictor of voting patterns than wealth.

:The flat tax is opposed for valid reasons in addition to invalid ones. Taxing consumption can distort the free market and might increase the power of government over the free market. It would also further marginalize the states.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Remember, wealth doesn't necessarily have to be the qualification. To respond to your points though, atheists are a political minority. Nobody in politics cares about winning the atheist's vote. On the McCain question, no one liked McCain enough to support him (he was a liberal trying to beat a liberal). You still haven't refuted many of my significant arguments. The tax system favors the poor and productive, and why would the poor vote against this? If the poor are so conservative then explain while they'll vote for a tax increase.You'd probably find that the middle class is the most reliably conservative group. It's true, the wealthy and elites are part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. Why would the rich want to have a tax system where they have to pay more, or a government where their tax dollars along go to fund free government programs for the poor, it only redistributes their wealth.

But back to voter qualifications, rather than wealth, let's say military service is a qualification for voting. You have to serve as an officer for at least five years before you can vote. Voters would have intense physical training, meaning they wouldn't be adverse to suffering, they would have good education, and they would be selfless. This is simply a suggestion; I'm open to other ideas on how to limit the franchise. Universal franchise is a uniquely modern idea. Few republics of the past have accepted the idea: the greeks, the thirteen colonies.
Finally, if mobocracy is so bad, then universal franchise is obviously bad. Mobocracy occurs whenever all citizens are allowed to influence the government, even if they do it through elected representatives. Remember, I never said that wealth was the qualification, or that only the wealthy should vote, but there should be some qualification.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:03, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

: Please do ... as long as it does not dilute the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Arthur Ashe ==

Perhaps Arthur Ashe's stunning upset victory to win Wimbledon should be included next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
:Didn't he also receive a presidential medal of freedom? I may be thinking of someone else, but if so, the top civilian award might stand for something too. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:10, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
::Looks like it was awarded posthumously. I don't know too much about him since I was pretty young in '93, but so far he has my vote. (references for the medal: [http://www.nndb.com/people/228/000023159/][http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2010/04/arthur-ashe-citizen-of-the-world/] )[[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

== "The ark was built by amateurs, but professionals built the Titanic” ==

The header above is a famous quote that seems to epitomize the point of this article. [http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_ark_was_built_by_amateurs_but_professionals_built_the_titanic/ I don't know who to attribute the quote to], and I'm not sure how to incorporate it into this encyclopedic article, so I thought I'd mention it here. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 23:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Personally speaking... ==

I find that technical expertise trumps folk wisdom and nickel know-how a lot of the time. I pay a mechanic to fix my car, even though my friends and I hanging around for a couple of hours could do an adequate job, and I go to a doctor when I'm under the weather, even though I know some remedies for coughs and colds. The doctor and the mechanic have spent years learning their trade; I've got nothing on that.

:Do you think this contradicts anything in [[best of the public]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Clarence Thomas quote ==

The Thomas quote is being misunderstood in the context of this article - he's clearly saying that he believes the 'bloggers' who complain about his clerks are a little self-important - 'jumped-up' as it were, and not as well informed or educated as his clerks. His "that's the attitude you're dealing with" comment is obviously referring to the fact that their bragging about their supposed superiority annoys him, and he ''doesn't'' think that the 'bloggers' know more than his clerks. I'm new here so I didn't want to just take it out without discussion. [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 13:30, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Best of the public

2011-06-14T17:24:25Z

GennaS: "Interview of Conservapedia" surely wrong?

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''"best of the public"''' is an approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview with ''Conservapedia'' and first published on December 3, 2009:<ref>Tom Breen. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/ Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation], ''Yahoo! News'', December 03, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|<big>'''The best of the public is better than a group of experts.'''</big>}}
The concept then became a topic of discussion in the interview with the owner of ''Conservapedia'' on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009.<ref>[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly], ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.</ref> In early February 2010, [[Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] implicitly endorsed the concept of the "best of the public" with this response to a question by a state college student:<ref>http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/clarence_thomas_rejects_ttt_label_for_his_law_clerks.php</ref>
{{cquote|I think there are smart kids a lot of places. ... [T]here is a bias. If you look at smart bloggers — or self-proclaimed smart bloggers — they referred to my clerks last year as TTT — 'third tier trash.' That's the attitude that you're up against.}}

Another way of expressing this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people."

The enigmatic Christian term the "Son of man" embodies how inspiration comes from the ostensibly ordinary rather than the esteemed experts. Most prophets were also ordinary men.

==Examples==

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project. Other examples of approaches using the "best of the public" include:

===Intellectual examples===

*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|earliest Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] was written by an anonymous individual, yet its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*the solution of one of the greatest unsolved problem of our time, the [[Poincaré conjecture]] (see below)
*[[Ronald Coase]], an originally obscure economist, developed the now-accepted [[Coase theorem]] despite nearly unanimous rejection and opposition by experts
*[[Evariste Galois]], an unknown teenager, developed [[group theory]] and it took the mathematical experts a century to appreciate it
*[[Alexander Hamilton]], the most intellectually productive of the [[Founding Fathers]], was abandoned by his father, orphaned by the premature death of his mother, and then orphaned again by the suicide of his adopted father; he was stigmatized due to his social background and excluded from the local [[British]] school for it.
*the principle of trial by a jury of one's peers
*letters to the editor
*the design of Vietnam War Memorial (competition won by a college student, featuring ordinary soldiers)
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)
*an obscure, unsuccessful author, [[Herman Melville]], wrote the greatest novel in English literature, ''[[Moby-Dick]]''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, [[William Shakespeare]], produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Electoral College]] was intended to be composed of the best of the public, who would judge who was best qualified to be President.
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*design of the distinctive Coca-Cola glass bottle, which resulted from a public contest in 1915.
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]]
*Layman Allen devised games like "WFF 'n proof" and Equations which reduced absenteeism, increased math achievement and achieved voluntary integration in the segregated Chicago school system. [http://o.b5z.net/i/u/6035566/f/pdfs/articles/chicagoreader.pdf]
*[[Homeschooled]] students tended to dominate the annual Math Counts competition to such an extent that the competition changed the rules to ban teams of homeschoolers from participating. <ref>http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2760:homeschoolers-count-national-math-competition-bans-homeschoolers&catid=49:people&Itemid=132</ref>

===Moral examples===

*[[Mary]], the mother of [[Jesus]]
*[[Stephen]], the first martyr
*Prophets in the [[Old Testament]]
*Lenny Skutnik, the [[Mississippi]] native who dove into the icy [[Potomac River]] to rescue passengers from the crashed airplane on Jan. 13, 1982.<ref>"I wasn't a hero," Lenny Skutnik said. "I was just someone who helped another human being. We're surrounded by heroes. What made this different was that it was caught on film and went all over the world." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202052.html]</ref>

=== Political and legal examples ===

*[[William Penn]]'s approach to colonial [[Pennsylvania]], which even advertised to attract hard-working settlers of all ethnicity and religious beliefs; as a result [[Philadelphia]] quickly became the most prosperous and highly populated city in colonial [[America]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] embraced and embodied the best of the public in his speeches and political philosophy, and personified it by his own political ascendancy outside of the party establishment
*the recall of the governor, the attorney general, and another top official in North Dakota in 1921 -- who were corrupt politicians devoted to state ownership of industry -- was organized and achieved by someone who never held public office<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/opinion/recalling-the-first-recall.html?pagewanted=1</ref>
*the "[[common law]]" developed over centuries based on many day-to-day judicial decisions, relying on logic, custom and precedent, and such law was considered better than a statute drafted by one or a few experts
*the [[Australian]] 2020 summit employed the best of the public by bringing together 1,000 people from all over Australia to discuss and make plans for the country's future.<ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/summit-not-just-another-talkfest/story-e6frg726-1111115465754</ref>

===Musical examples===

*"Battle Hymn of the Republic," the only significant song by Julia Ward Howe, written in the dark during a pre-dawn inspiration
*"I Can See Clearly Now," a massive one-hit wonder by Johnny Nash in 1972
*"American Pie," the only hit by Don McLean, one of the most thoughtful ballads to top the charts for several weeks
*"You Light Up My Life," the only hit by Debbie Boone, was a tribute to God that topped the charts for many weeks
*"Sunshine" (1971), which was not only a one-hit wonder by Jonathan Edwards, but it was included in his album only because a preferred song had been accidentally erased.<ref>here was a song on the album called ‘Please Find Me,’ and for some reason the engineer rolled over it. It got erased. We spent hours looking for it. We fired the engineer and put ‘Sunshine’ in its place.” [http://www.jonathanedwards.net/general/presskit-biography.php]</ref>
*"Ice Ice Baby" was the "B-side" filler panned by "experts" which became a massive hit because a disc jockey played it by chance; allegedly written by Vanilla Ice when he was 16<ref>"There's just something about the way its hook — a sample from Queen and David Bowie's ''Under Pressure'' — grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor." [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318500,00.html]</ref>
*[[American Idol]]
*"[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]," the [[national anthem]] of the United States

:''(add more one-hit wonders)''

=== Military examples ===

*Eddie Rickenbacker, who had to drop out of school at age 12 in order to support his mother after his father died, became the "American Ace of Aces" with 26 victories in [[World War I]] (despite being relatively old), survived on a life raft for 54 days after his plane went down in [[World War II]] (despite being over 50 years old), and later spoke out for [[conservative]] views; Rickenbacker, a phenomenal race-car driver when WWI broke out, was rejected for flying but then fixed [[Billy Mitchell]]'s car and persuaded him to give Eddie a chance at aviation.<ref>http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_rickenbacker.html</ref>

===Athletics===

Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill.
====Competitions====
*The [[Olympic Games]],<ref>Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.</ref> known for setting the most world records
*The [[Chicago Marathon]], known for setting records for the fastest American marathons
*The [[Tour de France]].<ref>In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.</ref>

====Achievements====
*[[Arthur Ashe]], son of a policeman, at the relatively old age of 31 crushed the nearly invincible 22-year-old Jimmy Connors in 1975 to become the only African American men's Wimbledon singles champion;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_2798000/2798971.stm</ref> Ashe won this upset with an ingenuous strategy of using offspeed volleys unfamiliar to the hard-hitting Connors.
*Dick Fosbury invented the Fosbury Flop despite criticism by all the experts. He won the 1968 Gold Medal with it, and now all imitate it.
*Bob Beamon, an obscure 22-year-old long jumper who barely qualified for the 1968 Olympic finals after fouling out on most attempts, then broke the world record by nearly two feet. In the preceding 30 years, the world record for the long jump had increased by only about 8 inches.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-bob-beamon.html</ref>
*An unsuccessful Olympian, the medical student Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute barrier for the mile, which some experts considered impossible; now the record is 3:43.
*A little-known pitcher, Don Larsen, threw the only perfect game in [[World Series]] history (Game 5, 1956)
*[[David]], a boy of slight build, defeated the most feared warrior of all time, the mammoth [[Goliath]]
*Kurt Warner, one of the greatest football quarterbacks,<ref>Warner is the only quarterback who has led two ''different'', hapless teams to three Super Bowls.</ref> was originally cut by the Green Bay Packers, denied a tryout by the Chicago Bears, and ultimately only given a chance due to another player's injury.
*Tom Brady, arguably the best quarterback of all time,<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2646827</ref> was given a chance at the NFL only after the experts had chosen 198 other players ahead of him in the 2000 NFL draft. He got to play only when Drew Bledsoe, chosen first by the experts in the 1993 draft, was injured.
*The Dallas Mavericks, having few stars, swept the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers and then crushed the star-studded Miami Heat to win the 2011 [[NBA]] title.
:''(add more)''

===Science and technology===
*the greatest river engineer ever, James B. Eads, lacked any formal education and his revolutionary successes (such as the Eads Bridge) were opposed by leading experts<ref name="Eads bridge">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/peopleevents/p_jbeads.html</ref>
*perhaps the greatest health program of the 20th century, using a new term he coined for his program ("[[aerobics]]"), was developed by military physician Kenneth Cooper outside of a major medical research facility
*"Moldy" Mary Hunt, a low-level lab worker, used a rotten cantaloupe to facilitate the first ''mass'' production of [[penicillin]].<ref>"Then, in 1943, Mary Hunt, a lab worker in Peoria, Illinois brought in a cantaloupe melon. It was said to have been infected with a 'pretty, golden mould'. This mould was 'Penicillium chrysogeum'. It yielded about 200 times as much penicillin as Fleming's mould. Florey used x-rays to mutate the mould, which eventually gave 1000 times the yield of penicillin from the original." [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11777&start=0&sid=270d7f1ec3dc7c97bbb3c84a264676cc]</ref>
*the [[free software]] movement and its ongoing development of the [[Linux]] operating system
*the development of a heavier-than-air, [[fixed wing]] aircraft by the [[Wright Brothers]], despite opposition and mockery by aviation "experts."
*[[Henry Ford]]'s mass-production techniques, which turned automobiles from a curiosity into the backbone of American industry despite Ford's lack of formal education.
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
*[[Steve Wozniak]] developed the first popular personal computer from a garage-based operation
*[[Leonardo Da Vinci]] is one of the most well known designers in history, yet was illiterate in Latin, and never attended a university.
*distributed computing projects such as [[Folding@home]] that combine the computing power of hundreds of thousands of standard home PCs to solve computationally intense problems.
*the [[intelligent design]] theory explaining the origins of our universe.
*Tired of being denied a voice in the elite liberal media, [[Conservative media]] finds its voice and is widely popular; [[FOX News]], Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, NewsMax, ''[[National Review]]'', Worldnetdaily.com.
*New astronomical discoveries are regularly reported by amateur astronomers, to then be published by "experts", advancing their careers in the process.
*The leading and most innovative internet browser, [[Firefox]], was developed in a not-for-profit effort outside of the multi-billion-dollar [[Microsoft]] and [[Google]] empires.
*[[Mikhail Kalashnikov]] was drafted by the Russian military, and despite being trained in poetry and literature, eventually was made a firearms designer. He drew upon inspiration from Russian literature, and the Bible to focus on simplicity, and dependability. This simplicity resulted in the atheist experts rejecting his designs, and declaring them unworkable. The experts were however ultimately proven wrong, when one of his designs went on to win an open design contest, and became the single most reliable and prevalent firearm in the world: the [[AK-47]].
*In 1919, philanthropist Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to the first person to fly a solo, non-stop flight between New York and Paris. Although many wealthy aviation experts attempted to win this prize, it was an unknown amateur pilot named [[Charles Lindbergh]] who won it.
*In 1873, [[homeschooled]] [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[James Clerk Maxwell]] discovered the system of equations bearing his name that describe [[electromagnetism]].

===Exploration and discovery===
*Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, despite near-unanimous expert opinion that his first voyage was doomed to failure. On his second voyage, he successfully returned to the same place he had previously reached, despite the limited navigational skills of the experts of the time.

===Journalism===
*As noted in Conservapedia's breaking news, the [[lamestream media]] is being replaced by [[YouTube]] videos of breaking news.<ref>Fernandez, Richard. "A Wired World in its Own Mirror." March 11, 2011. Pajamas Media. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/11/a-wired-world-in-its-own-mirror/?singlepage=true</ref>
*Large media outlets have begun presenting amateur reports from viewers. This began with [[CNN]]'s iReport<ref>http://ireport.cnn.com</ref> and later was adopted by [[Fox News]] (uReport<ref>http://ureport.foxnews.com</ref>) and others.

== Obstacles Created by Experts ==

Experts have self-interest in defending their theories, even if incorrect, and in perpetuating the system that has rewarded and applauded them. Some experts receive prodigious sums by promoting theories that are false or implausible, either in the media or in courtrooms.

Most experts reasonably fear loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position disfavored by [[liberal]]s.

===Examples===

One expert said about the revolutionary design of the Eads bridge to transport heavy ships by railroad over the [[Mississippi River]]:<ref name="Eads bridge"/>
{{cquote|I deem it entirely unsafe and impracticable.}}
The Eads bridge continues to stand to this day.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_footage.html</ref>

==The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand==

The concept of best of the public was first articulated on [[Conservapedia]], although the effects have been observed by many great thinkers over the years. In a free society where the best of the public is allowed the latitude to excel, benefits accrue on many levels. [[Adam Smith]], the father of capitalism, observed this principle in effect; in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', he described how the best of the public, when given the freedom to generate wealth, could generate a net beneficial and uplifting effect that goes beyond their individual enterprises. Smith called this the "[[Invisible Hand]]." However, he confined his observations to the sphere of economics, whereas the "Best of the Public" principle operates on many different levels.

Marriage and family, for example, serve as an illustration of the principle in the social arena. When marriage is allowed to function without government interference and misguided attempts at social engineering, the result is strong families; the best of the public raise children of superior virtue and character, who in turn grow up to pass those values on to their children. This, in turn, leads to a net positive effect on society known as the [[Invisible Hand of Marriage]].

The same uplifting principle can be seen in any situation in which the best of the public is allowed to freely function and attain its potential. Events like the Olympics and the Tour de France permit the best of the public to strive on a physical level, resulting in many new record-breaking performances. While the principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] demonstrates the benefits that can result.

==Opposition to the Best of the Public==

===Government restrictions===
History demonstrates that the best of the public can only thrive in a free society. The cream cannot rise to the top if it is weighted down; eagles cannot soar if they are shackled by an oppressive government. This understanding is at the heart of conservative wisdom.

For example: it is only in a [[free market economy]] that the best of the public will be truly free to drive innovation, develop new technologies, and generate new wealth. In an overly-regulated economy, the incentive to excel is greatly reduced. Innovation is replaced by stagnation, and achievement by mediocrity.

===Elite gatekeepers===
Likewise, in an academic environment in which elite "experts" serve as gatekeepers, truly innovative research is frequently squelched in favor of orthodoxy and blind consensus. The chilling effect "scientific experts" can have on honest research was clearly demonstrated by the [[Climategate]] scandal. Even when such "experts" do not actively conspire to suppress dissent, their use of expertise and consensus as a bully pulpit can still silence opposing (and possibly correct) viewpoints.

===Mobs===
It is important to note the difference between "Best of the Public" and "mob rule." Simply allowing the loudest or most numerous voices to prevail is not the same thing as allowing the best of the public to drive achievement. Sites such as [[Wikipedia]] operate on the principle of mob rule, and as a result, are plagued with bias, inaccuracy, and an inability to differentiate between significant insights and trivia.

One of the most pointed illustrations of this difference is the [[United States]] itself. The [[Founding Fathers]], despite not naming it, applied the "Best of the Public" principle in their attempts to craft a new government. Realizing the danger of mob rule, they rejected a pure democracy in favor of a democratic Republic--a system designed to ensure that, while all of the public would have a voice in their new government, the best of the public would guide that government as elected representatives. In so doing, they clearly affirmed that they believed the best of the public was better than a group of experts; in contrast, the nations of Europe still firmly subscribed to the notion that government should be in the hands of elite "experts" (the ruling families and nobility.)

===Obscurity===
The "best of the public" must be able to be heard. There are millions of books published, and even more books self-published without approval of traditional publishing houses. Many authors protest<ref>Paul Biba. [http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/18/self-publishing-e-books-and-legitimacy-part-3-of-a-series/ Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series], teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm Prime Palaver #6]", Eric Flint</ref> that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

==Experts versus the Best of the Public==
Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of [[groupthink]] and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.<ref>See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.</ref>

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university. In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field. He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject. Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished. Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources. Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye. Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A. He very well might disagree with the experts' point of view; at the very least, he would have a much better knowledge of its shortcomings.

A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.

== Solution of the Poincaré Conjecture ==

The solution to the [[Poincaré conjecture]], one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known [[Gregori Perelman]] who worked on his own and merely posted his solution on the internet. He had never been offered a permanent job and was critical of the lack of openness among mathematical experts as he described a rare exception:<ref>[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added)], Encyclopedia of World Biography.</ref>
{{cquote|He actually told me a couple of things that he published a few years later. He did not hesitate to tell me. Hamilton's openness and generosity—it really attracted me. '''I can't say that most mathematicians act like that'''.}}
At great monetary sacrifice, Perelman refused to accept the awards conferred on him by experts after they eventually recognized the brilliance of his proof. A leading expert was accused of improperly trying to take credit for Perelman's work.

The Steklov Institute apparently declined to re-elect Perelman as a member in 2003, supposedly because the experts continued to doubt his proof. Reportedly Perelman has quit mathematics and was "jobless, living with his mother in St. Petersburg, and subsisting on her modest pension." He was quoted as saying:<ref>Mike Ciavarella. [http://imechanica.org/node/3360 Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers], imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.</ref>
{{cquote|I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. ... It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated.}}

In 2006, the mathematical establishment delivered another backhanded compliment to Perelman's achievement: he was awarded the [[Fields Medal]] on a shared basis with (1) an Obama-supporter who had jointly worked on a number theory problem, (2) a French mathematician-actor, and (3) a younger countryman who had achieved far less. This four-way split of the prize with far less significant achievements was inappropriate. Perelman declined this prize also.

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
* [[Expert Error]]
* [[Independent review]]
{{Conservapedia}}
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]