Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Norse mythology

2008-05-26T18:50:03Z

Gulik:

'''Norse mythology''' studies the myths of the [[heathen]] religion of the [[Vikings]] before they were [[Christian]]ized.

The complex cosmology of these myths asserts nine worlds (not to be confused with planets) that are connected by a gigantic ash tree called Yggdrasil.

One of these nine worlds is [[Midgard]], the world of men. In the Norse creation myth as we know it today, Midgard was made from the dismembered body of a huge giant named Ymir, who was killed by the god brothers [[Odin]], [[Vili]], and [[Ve]] in revenge for his predations on their ancestors. The progenitors of humanity are Aske and Embla, who were made from two pieces of driftwood found by these gods on the shore of Midgard's ocean. "Middle Earth" in [[Tolkein]]'s [[Lord of the Rings]] is a name adapted from "Midgard"; many of the names and concepts in his works were adapted or taken directly from Norse myths.

There are two kinds of gods in these myths: Aesir and Vanir (these are plural names). The world of the Aesir is called [[Asgard]] (pronounced more like OWS-gard); the Vanir have their own world called Vanaheim, but a few of them live in Asgard. Norse myths are primarily about the inhabitants of Asgard.

The full roster of worlds is argued by scholars, as the source materials are fragmentary and sometimes contradictory. Some of the other worlds are Alfheim (Elf-home), Svartalfheim (Dark Elf or Dwarf-home), Jotunheim (Giant-home), Muspellheim (Uncertain translation but might as well be Fire-home) and Niflheim (Fog-home). The Germanic pronunciation of the ''-heim'' suffix rhymes with ''time'', while the Icelandic pronunciation rhymes with ''flame''; you are likely to hear both. The accent on all of these names is always on the first syllable.

The Norse creation myth is fundamentally different from the Abrahamic (Christian) creation story found in [[Genesis]]. In the Abrahamic story, consciousness (God) creates existence and life, but in a common interpretation of the Norse story, a cyclic existence creates or recycles life and consciousness. For example, at the beginning of the Norse story, the fire giant Surt is already imprisoned in Muspellheim. No explanation is given for this situation, but his eventual escape is foretold and not to be looked forward to. The frost giant Ymir is spontaneously generated from the cold vapors of Niflheim, and Buri, grandfather of Odin and his brothers, is released (apparently not generated) from the ice of Niflheim to take up life. Once again, no explanation is given for his being there. One can only imagine, but some preceding cycle of existence is implied.

At the other end of the myths is [[Ragnarok]], a great battle in which the gods and their favored human warriors fight the various giants and their allies. Most of the gods die in this battle, but a few survive, along with two humans, who then begin the next cycle of existence. In the Viking culture, dying in battle was considered highly desirable, as only these warriors might be selected to fight and die (again) with the gods at Ragnarok. Most people who do not die in battle are consigned to spend forever in Niflheim with the death goddess Hela (the origin of the modern English word "hell"). This fate is considered morally neutral: it is not associated with punishment or torment, and the food in Niflheim is reputedly quite good. Truly evil people are sent to a place called Nastrond. Descriptions of Nastrond vary, but it is a place you really don't want to be.

Along with gods, men, giants, elves, and dwarves, a variety of other types of beings are mentioned. Most notable are dragons, trolls, and local land-spirits (wights). The practice of heathen religion tends to have as much to do with wights as with gods.

==Odin==
'''Odin''' is usually said to be the leader of the gods. He has many alternate names (Bolverk, Wegtam, Gandalf, Ygg, Valfather, to name a few), and many areas of interest, including [[war]] and [[death]], [[poetry]] and [[art]], and wisdom in general. Also, Odin is credited with the creation of [[human|humans,]] along with two other gods, either his brothers Vili and Ve, or his friends Hoenir and Lodur, depending on which mythological source you happen to read.

In the myths, Odin is easy to recognize, even when he is disguised as Wegtam the Wanderer. He traded one eye for a drink from the Well of Wisdom, so he wears a large floppy hat pulled low over his face, or drapes his long gray hair over the missing eye. He is said to wear a blue or gray cloak. Of course, as things tend to go in myths, the humans he encounters don't usually know who he is when he arrives on their doorsteps dressed this way. Some people treat their visitor poorly, while others treat him well, with predictable results.

Odin has children by several different giantesses, including his most famous son, [[Thor]]. His wife, however, is [[Frigga]], the goddess of marriage, motherhood, and the home. Odin and Frigga have two sons, named [[Baldr]] and Hodr.

When Odin goes to war, his special [[weapon]] is a spear named Gungnir. He sometimes travels on his eight-legged horse Sleipnir. He knows what's happening in the world of men because his two ravens Hugin and Munin (Thought and Memory) fly over the world each day, then come home to tell him what they've seen and heard.

"Odin" is this god's [[Scandinavian]] name. In Old [[Anglo-Saxon]], his name is "Woden", from which we get our modern English word "Wednesday". In German, his name is "Wotan", and you will see him in [[Wagner]]'s famous Ring Cycle operas. Although these are all names for the same god, his personality changes a little in these different Northern European subcultures: Wotan is more of a stern war general, while Odin is more of a politician.

==Tyr==
Tyr is one of the most important gods, although very few stories about him have survived. In pre-Viking-era mythology, as reported to us by the Roman author Tacitus, Tiw (the Germanic form of "Tyr") was the leader of the gods. During the Dark Ages, very little is known about the specifics of this culture. When we see the culture again in the 9th and 10th Centuries, something has happened: Tyr has receded into the background and [[Odin]] is much more prominent.

In one surviving story about Tyr, the gods have decided that the fearsome wolf named Fenris must be bound and imprisoned. But Fenris is so fierce and strong, no one knows how to accomplish this. Eventually, some trickery is suggested: magic chains will be constructed, and Fenris will be dared to break them. Fenris is very proud of his strength, and cannot resist the challenge. Of course, the gods hope he will not be able to break these chains, but he does. Finally, since nothing seems to be able to bind Fenris, an even more magical binding is made, but it is made from things that are essentially ''nothing''. When this is shown to Fenris, he does not like the look of it, but he agrees to be bound if one of the gods will place a hand in Fenris's mouth during the test of this magic binding. Among gods known for their bravery, only Tyr is brave enough to do this. Initially, he offers his left hand, but Fenris insists on Tyr's right hand. Tyr is a famous swordsman, and the loss of his right hand will be an enormous loss to the gods in their wars against evil giants. Still, this must be done, and Tyr does it. The magic binding will not break, and Tyr loses his hand, but the worlds of the Norse myths are safe again, for a while at least.

Among [[heathen]]s, all sworn oaths are considered important, but oaths sworn on the right hand of Tyr are especially sacred.

Tyr's wife's name is Zisa. Almost nothing is known about her beyond her name.

The Germanic "Tiw" form of Tyr's name is the source of our modern English word "Tuesday". Looking back even farther in the history of languages, and then tracing his name forward again along the Southern European route, Tyr's name becomes "Deus". In other words, Tyr is literally a god whose name means "god".
==Baldr==
'''Baldr''' is a son of [[Odin]] and his wife [[Frigga]]. He is handsome, pleasant, and kind. His murder is the precursor of Ragnarok. This murder is arranged by [[Loki]], but carried out unwittingly by Baldr's blind brother Hodr.
==Freya==
'''Freya''' (also spelled Freyja) is the [[love]] goddess. She is very beautiful and highly desirable. When the evil giants in these myths get the gods in some kind of a bind, they usually demand possession of Freya as the price of ransom. Of course, this price is always unacceptable, and some other solution to the problem must be found.

One of Freya's noteworthy attributes is her necklace, ''Brisingamen''. She bought the necklace from four "dark elves", masters of the making of things, and she paid a very high price for it: among other things, it cost her her beloved husband.

There is an ongoing debate among people who study this [[mythology]] about whether the modern English word "[[Friday]]" was originally "Freya's Day", or if it is "[[Frigga]]'s Day", named after [[Odin]]'s wife.

==Frey==

Freya's brother is '''Frey''' (also spelled Freyr), who is involved with the mythic history of the kings of [[Sweden]]. He is a male "love god" counterpart to his sister, and also a god of agricultural fertility. He is closely associated with the richness of summer. Although he is a great warrior, he is also one of the most benign of the gods. In the early Old English ''Caedmon's Hymn'', the Christian god is described partly by analogy with Frey.

The words ''Frey'' and ''Freya'' are actually titles, not names. They translate directly as ''Lord'' and ''Lady''. Scholars argue over their proper names, but this is mostly guesswork.

==Thor==
'''Thor''' is the god of [[thunder]]. He is the son of [[Odin]] and a giantess Iorth (Earth). Thor is described as having red hair and blue eyes. He is enormously strong, and he enjoys doing battle with evil giants. His special weapon is a magic hammer named Mjolnir that always hits whatever Thor throws it at, and then returns to his hand. The myths state that he makes thunder by riding across the tops of clouds in his chariot, which is drawn by two very large and aggressive goats.

In one of the myths, Thor's hammer is stolen by a giant, who holds it for ransom. This giant says he will give the hammer back if the gods give him the sun, the moon, and the love goddess [[Freya]] in exchange. Rather than pay the ransom, it is suggested that Thor dress as Freya, with a thick veil covering his face, and go to get the hammer back himself. Thor ''really'' does not like the idea of dressing as a woman, but the other gods talk him into it. After several near-mishaps, the plan works. The giant, still thinking Thor is Freya, places the hammer in his lap. Thor throws off the veil and dress, kills the giant and all the other giant guests at the wedding, then goes home.

Thor's wife is the very blonde and beautiful [[Sif]], the goddess of grain. This pairing is significant, as it was once thought that [[lightning]] fertilized the fields.

In English, the word "[[Thursday]]" was originally "Thor's Day". In German, Thor is called Donner, which literally means "Thunder".

During the [[heathen]] Viking era, Thor was an enormously popular god in Northern Europe. Many people of the time wore hammer amulets, much as modern [[Christians]] wear crosses today.

===The Comic===

Since 1962, a comic book has been published on-and-off by [[Marvel Comics]] in which Thor is the superhero. The creators of this comic used some of the original mythic material, but did not follow it completely. For example, Thor is shown with blond hair in the comic, and other aspects of the myths were significantly changed.

==Loki==
'''Loki''' is not really a god, but a clever and handsome giant who is befriended by [[Odin]] and lives among the Aesir. Loki is the trickster in these myths: a complex and enigmatic character. Describing him simply as "the bad guy" does not begin to describe the many roles he plays. At the end of the mythic sequence, however, he has become evil and seeks the destruction of the gods.

Loki has several children, the most notable being the wolf Fenris, Odin's eight-legged horse Sleipnir (who Loki was the '''mother''' of), the giant snake Jormungand (often called the Midgard Serpent), and the death goddess Hela. Fenris and Jormungand are unquestionably evil, but Hela, although ghastly to look on (half woman and half corpse), seems to be relatively benign as long as she remains in her domain of Niflheim.

==Ragnarok==
'''Ragnarok''' is the prophecied [[End of the world]] in Norse mythology. On that day, the Midgard Serpent will rise from the ocean, the Fenris Wolf will swallow the sun, and Hela will lead an army of the dead against the living in a ship made from the fingernails of the dead.

This has yet to happen.

[[Category:Norse Mythology]]
[[Category:Mythology]]

Greater Fool Theory

2008-05-26T18:33:37Z

Gulik:

The '''Greater Fool Theory''' is the principle in [[investing]] that any investment can turn a profit (or at least, minimize losses) by selling the property to someone who will buy them at a higher price.

==See Also==
*[[eBay]]
*[[Stock Market]]
*[[P. T. Barnum]]

[[Category:Macroeconomics]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Microeconomics]]

Greater Fool Theory

2008-05-26T18:32:47Z

Gulik: New page: The '''Greater Fool Theory''' is the principle in investing that any investment can turn a profit (or at least, minimize losses) by selling the property to someone more gullible. ==Se...

The '''Greater Fool Theory''' is the principle in [[investing]] that any investment can turn a profit (or at least, minimize losses) by selling the property to someone more gullible.

==See Also==
*[[eBay]]
*[[Stock Market]]
*[[P. T. Barnum]]

[[Category:Macroeconomics]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Microeconomics]]

Macroeconomics Terms G

2008-05-26T18:30:06Z

Gulik:

{{Macroeconomics Index}}

[[Guns versus butter]]
[[Greater Fool Theory]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-05-26T18:21:24Z

Gulik: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]
# [[Adoption and Abortion]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?| Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?|Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?| If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?|Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?|Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Conservapedia:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated

2008-05-26T18:21:21Z

Gulik: New page: ==Yes== I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much spa...

==Yes==
I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-23T21:42:30Z

Gulik: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [[professor values]] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [[God]]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 23:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, and as far as a direct example of elitism on this site: The caption under the photo about the fight that went up on YouTube reads, "A fight typical of [[public school]] students." I wish I knew you, Ashclafay, so I could ask you to look me in the eye and say that isn't an elitist statement. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 15:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: Capolavoro046, I'll look you in the eye and ask you to be concise. I didn't read all your comments above. Surely you can make your point well in a few short sentences. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::You know, having an outspoken proponent of homeschooling such as yourself respond to a reasoned objection with "Too long; didn't read." would not exactly fill me with confidence about you teaching my hypothetical children. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jordin Sparks ==

Jordin Sparks won the American Idol contest one year, which is good and fun for her. I wish her the best. But does that media award place her as a "prominent American" in the league of the others on the list? I don't think so, and think she should remain a footnote on the music issue and not in the main list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:I added her because we have so few examples of homeschoolers born in the late 20th century, and thus homeschooled during the modern homeschooling movement. Such people are likely to be less prominent, simply because they are younger. I have some thoughts on how to manage this, but I must do our schooling here at home before spending time editing this morning. {{unsigned|Hsmom}}

:: If there is a goal of having homeschoolers born in the late 20th century, then the math prodigies would be better picks. But I don't see what is so special about the late 20th century. Homeschooling now is not that different from 100 years ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==You're all missing the point==
ASchlafly says homeschooling is superioer. Therefore, homeschooling IS superior. How come you all have a hard time understanding this? Don't you know by now, as goes the Schlafly family, so goes the world?

"L'etat, c'est moi!"

: See if you can learn how to spell "superior".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Voluntary bankruptcy

2008-05-23T21:39:04Z

Gulik:

'''Voluntary bankruptcy''' is a proceeding by which a [[debtor]] voluntarily files papers with a [[court]] in order to obtain a discharge of his debts under the [[Bankruptcy]] Code.
[[category:law]]

User talk:DanH

2008-05-23T21:38:25Z

Gulik: /* Liberal depravity */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive4]]

== IRC ==

Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

:I'm not sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Leptospirosis ==

Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Martin ==

Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Animals A etc.==
Can you move [[Animals A]] to [[Animal Terms A]]
[[Animals C]] to [[Animal Terms C]]
[[Animals G]] to [[Animal Terms G]]
[[Animals P]] to [[Animal Terms P]]
[[Animals V]] to [[Animal Terms V]]
[[Animals W]] to [[Animal Terms W]]
[[Animals Y]] to [[Animal Terms Y]]
[[Animals Z]] to [[Animal Terms Z]]
? --[[User:Qweki2|Qweki2]] 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Bans?==
What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of [[User:Liberal9188]] and [[User:HHSFake]].. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.
:I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. [[User:HarryWharton|HarryWharton]] 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== So, what's the policy ==

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it ''en masse'' when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them ''en masse'' on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thank you. [[User:Feuerstein|Feuerstein]] 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Why not copy from Wikipedia? ==

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
CLtFn--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Blessings to you on Easter - ==

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Happy Easter and...... ==

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Great example ==

Great example of [[opportunity costs]], Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name-calling==

Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the [[Marketplace of ideas]]. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Deborah ==

Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. [[User:BertSchlossberg]] also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.
:I'll have to look at that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Midrash&oldid=418826] First strike she did. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the link. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Tools ==

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:Haha... oops. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Christianity templates ==

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== ChrisGomez ==
Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. [[User:Peason|Peason]] 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]]
:::It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
::::When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.[[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Cracking the filter==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Francis_%46ukuyama&action=edit&section=1

== Hooray Kansas ==

Congrats, but you do of course know that had Bucknell made it to the tournament this year, and had we played each other, we SO would have knocked you out this year. Again. So you should be thanking us. ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled edit==

Why dod you revert the expelled change?
The sentance 'making one wonder...' is really unencyclopedic
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:It's probably not best to change the wording of the site's creator immediately after putting it there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== A user's page is his castle, huh? ==

You know, just because I may have committed ''lese majeste'' against Blessed St. Ronald is no reason to go messing up the format of my userpage. Which nobody is supposed to mess with, anyway. And I '''do''' think Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's back in 1980. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]

:That doesn't give you the right to be mean spirited or violate the Conservapedia Commandments. And don't be condescending enough to say that I think that Reagan is a saint. I have major problems with his deficit spending policies. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Page move request ==
can you delete [[States of the Unites States of America]] and [[States]] all they do is redirect to a category -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 13:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:[[States of the United States of America]] is linked to from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/States_of_the_United_States_of_America eight other pages]. Deleting it will break those links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:39, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hi! from all of us at AtheistHQ ==
Hi Dan! You missed a few of us, ya big lug! And, on a different subject, you got something against quirky Twin Peaks references? [[User:TrueScouse|TrueScouse]] 23:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I must have missed it - can't say I've ever watched Twin Peaks. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, you ''should'', it's great. For future reference, when someone addresses a tape recorder by name, that's ''probably'' a TP-related joke. Plus, "hit the road jack"? ''That's'' a pretty odd joke as well, wouldn't ya say? [[User:BlueMouse|BlueMouse]] 06:14, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like a troll ==

[[User:Alexjohnc3]]

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=410893 Recent comment]:

<blockquote>
Maybe they're so conservative that they're liberal. Like they go around the whole political spectrum? Or maybe, just maybe, this "encyclopedia" is just a load of BS written "[[Creationists|conservatives]]" who are upset that their beliefs all too often don't match up with reality so they need their own little sand box where they can censor any dissenters and tell themselves they're trustworthy and honest all they want without the threat of having their (crazy) beliefs mocked or criticized by anyone.
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== A major online conservative christian newspaper..... ==

A major online conservative christian newspaper is very interested in regards to Conservapedia's [[atheism]] article and the reporter said she would very likely do a story on it. She said her readers are VERY interested in the subject of atheism and the story that we are promoting our article and that some major Christian internet ministries have started to feature our article is a good story. I am making the conservapedia [[atheism]] article the article of the month which I think fits in nicely with the Expelled controversy. I have sent Andy an email on this matter and I am awaiting an answer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
==Ajdak and Aydak==
Delete
*[[Ajdak]]
*[[Aydak]]

I can't find any information proving these are actually considered deities by any people -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==Wife==
Why the reversion? I have, as requested by Philip, provided Biblical references on which the statement is founded. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Great! ==

Thank God, you came in at the right time!--[[User:MReilly|MReilly]] 15:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Do you really think that God cares about websites? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 15:43, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== IndianaJ ==

Dan, I had a look at his edits and not all of it needs reverting - I would skip the talk pages for example so long as it's not objectionable. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== I'm not a sock ==

I am not a sock. Yes, I am the same person who was TNS 1 and 2, but only because I lost the passwords to those accounts. They are no longer in use. [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== sysop-protected page ==

Hi, [[Lemon Test]] page has been protected: ''*10 February 2008 DanH Protected "Lemon test" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]'' - this page shows up in the list of "uncategorized pages" - requesting unprotect long enough to add a category, thanks! :) [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:04, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:Certainly. I forgot that was still protected. Hopefully three months is long enough. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! :) I added categories, if desired, please feel free to protect again, I'm done there now! -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:15, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ravings from the other side==

Good luck with your finals! [[User:NewHouse|NewHouse]] 22:18, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

My talk page was vandalized, can i report this to you? --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers, ill know that for the future, god bless. --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ans ==
Right, right. I'm so used to pressing "delete" instead of "backspace"... sorry about that. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Ans is French for "years", so it's still a word. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

Did you delete my Conservapedia bias page?
If you did, you're just proving my point. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}
:No, that does not prove your point in any way. Sorry. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
::Yes I did, and do you really expect an "equal airing" on a site called Conservapedia? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:11, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I expected "the facts" but I guess I'll go elsewhere for that. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}

== quick note ==

DanH, in about a minute I am sending you an email I sent Andy and some other conservapedia Sysops. Your input would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:50, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::By the way, I have the vote of Joaquin Martinez and Ed Poor. TerryH read my proposal and has not stated anything for or against my proposal but my guess is that he will be for my proposal based on my previous interaction with TerryH. Do I have your vote for my proposal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:At this point in time, I abstain. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[al Qaeda]] ==

Hi, I'd like to make some changes to the article as described [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl_Qaeda&diff=440525&oldid=286437 here], but the article is locked. Any chance of getting it unlocked? [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:I unlocked it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, changes made. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Hitler==
Why did you delete then restore an article that kills its view count and decreases its ranking-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Because it's an embarrassment to have Adolf Hitler in the top 5 for most viewed pages. It's bad enough that it was done with all the Homosexuality pages. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:55, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Just keep it like that, it will get us more traffic to our site, and I know it looks bad, but it increases rankings -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
*I don't really care if Conservapedia is in the top 10 when you search for Adolf Hitler. It won't be anyway because there are way too many more popular sites that have already climbed the Google rankings. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Userpage ==
If you don't mind me asking, what was that pledge removal thing about?[[User:Moonboots|Moonboots]] 21:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Communism and socialism==

Thanks, Dan. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=459168] I have trouble explaining the distinction between [[Communism]] and [[Socialism]]. Perhaps a chart or table would help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

==Hi==

I noticed you deleted an article on [[Liberal Depravity]] just now for being parody. Although most likely written by a scheming editor, is it not a bit of a double standard to allow articles that scream parody to remain here on this site? I'm referring to Liberal tricks etc. and the homosexual articles. {{unsigned|JEdgar}}

::I don't think Conservative has parody in mind. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal depravity ==

If you didn't like my article, why not improve on it? Surely, nobody reading this site could draw any OTHER conclusion but that Liberals are immoral monsters, driven solely by their disgusting glandular urges and UTTER HATRED of God and America. Fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:I don't share that view, in fact, I have liberal views on some issue. You're obviously being a parodist. I expect better from you. Cut it out. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
If ''these'' are all "real articles":
* Classical liberal
* Drinking Liberally
* Godless liberal
* Hollywood values
* Last wordism
* Liberal activists
* Liberal arts
* Liberal Arts college
* Liberal Bias
* Liberal celebrity obsession
* Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
* Liberal Christianity
* Liberal deceit
* Liberal Democrats
* Liberal denial
* Liberal Elite
* Liberal Falsehoods
* Liberal Fascism
* Liberal friendship
* Liberal Gloss
* Liberal grading
* Liberal hate speech
* Liberal Hypocrisy
* Liberal hysteria
* Liberal ideology
* Liberal Intellectualism
* Liberalism and art
* Liberal labels
* Liberal Lies About the American Right
* Liberal logic
* Liberal Mind
* Liberal Myths
* Liberal obfuscation
* Liberal Party
* Liberal quotient
* Liberal supremacist
* Liberal Style
* Liberal tools
* Liberal tricks
* Liberal values
* Massachusetts liberal
* Professor values
(All taken from [[Liberal]])
Then I humbly submit that [[Liberal depravity]] should fit RIGHT IN.
(And what are you allegedly have liberal views about, and how did you keep Mr. Schlafly from finding out?) --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative values

2008-05-23T21:25:51Z

Gulik: /* I don't mean to be a pain */

Should be something regarding the importance of faith/religion here. Also, family.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 10:49, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Come on would you, there is no way you can say that Conservative Values cure mental illness, I'm deleteing it. 15:01, [[User:TinkyWinky|TinkyWinky]] 15:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I meant the statement, not the article, anyway I just did, revert it if you like, but that won't make the lack of refs any less conspicuous. [[User:TinkyWinky|TinkyWinky]] 15:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Maybe you'd want to tell me how you can make such bizzare claims without a proper source. Go see the CP commandment about references. [[User:TinkyWinky|TinkyWinky]] 15:07, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Your spelling is atrocious, and no one said that [[conservative values]] "cure" mental illness. But they help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps I should utilise less colloquial vernaculars from my native idiom henceforth, Mr. Schlafly. You have only slightly diminished the gravity of your claims (yes you authored this article). Claiming that conservative values "help" mental illness is still a sufficiently serious claim to warrant a demand for references. [[User:TinkyWinky|TinkyWinky]] 15:14, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

This isn't funny any more, I will get rid of that statement for the sake of accuracy if someone does not find sources. You are breaking the commandment about sourcing statements. You're sysops. Set a good e*ample [[User:MichaelC|MichaelC]] 16:10, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, in that new list, "mental disorders" at the end is somewhat redundant, given that most everything else in the list meets that description. Perhaps you might say "other mental disorders". More importantly, just like on the addiction page, you should cite the research that you're referring to in drawing those conclusions. I did some searching but couldn't find anything; however, I imagine that you must have something that you haven't had the chance to add to the article yet. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not sure that addiction, anxiety and depression are classified as "mental disorders," but I'm make your change. As to support, we've seen some already in a few news items on the front page about correlations between mental problems or stress and political views. This entry is new today and I welcome citations, and will add some myself. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sure they are, they're all in the DSM (addiction = dependence). Unless you meant, as far as anxiety and depression are concerned, symptoms that don't meet diagnostic criteria. As to support, I will look forward to your citations. As I mentioned I searched but did not find any research on the topic, supportive or otherwise. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:56, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about "to help us understand the benefits of traditional family values"? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:52, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't think "conservative values" are synonymous with "traditional family values," although there is some overlap. Someone from a divorced home, or abandoned altogether (as famous conservative orphans were), can just as easily benefit from [[conservative values]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree, I actually meant to add it in the part at the bottom, where it lists some of the results for embracing conservative values. Basically to say that one of the good things it does is lead us to other good things (if possible). [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== A Change maybe ==

This "giving primacy to God's creation and God's law in judging all worldly matters" Should perhaps be removed as not all conservatives are christian/deists.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: [[Christians]] are not the only ones who give primacy to God's laws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
::But they are the only ones with [[faith]], right? How can we reconcile this?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:37, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed that is true but not all conservatives do and some liberals are christians
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:07, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Citations ==
There are still no citations for the claims about conservative values "defending against" addiction, etc. The one cite (and really the study itself should be cited, rather than The Economist) only speaks to stress, and only includes white Protestants, so is probably not particularly representative of either group (conservatives or, especially, liberals). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sigh...I suppose I should let it go at this point but none of those citations actually provide any evidence about the points they're attached to. The first 2 are merely assertions. Stress does not equal anxiety. A person's self-report of whether they have good mental health, regardless of its reliability, tells us little about serious mental illness, a phrase which refers to such disorders as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Murray, you seemed determined to deny any correlation. Do you really think there is no correlation ''at all'''? Mormons and Muslims prohibit alcohol and ... guess what? There is less incidence of alcoholism among those groups. Please do tell us you deny that also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:::When have I denied any correlation Andy? I would guess there is a very modest correlation that is the effect of religiosity (ie, control for that and your correlation will disappear). That is not the point, as a reading of my comments would make clear. You made a number of assertions that should be cited. I looked for citations for all of them and found nothing. Articles in an encyclopedia should be properly sourced, should they not? As I pointed out above, none of the citations that are included support the points they're attached to. That's not appropriate, in my view. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== See Also- Andy Schlafly ==

This looks like it was added by banned vandal [[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]], perhaps as parody?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_values&diff=445782&oldid=445781

At the very least it should probably be changed to 'Andrew Schlafly'. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:18, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==I don't mean to be a pain==

I know you guys get your fair share of moaning against you, but I felt someone had to say something here. Do you really believe that conservatives are always right and liberals are always wrong? No set of ideas can hold the answer to everything. Its kind of sad that people choose to box themselves into corners, but this is perhaps indicative, that after been online for over a year, Conservapedia still has only a dozen or so contributors. Have you no shame, or sense of humiliation?

: Wow, JEdgar, you are clueless. Try to figure out how to sign your edits first. And, yes, those who seek the truth are right far more often then those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: But Andy, you'd DON'T 'seek the truth'. You've decided you've already FOUND it, in full. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Its a bit juvenile to mock someone who doesn't know who to use this wiki software. And of course, resulting to mockery, an example of 'Liberal Style' according to this site. I've never seen hypocrisy at this fantastical level. Liberals don't seek the truth? So what do they do? Lie and 'ignore the truth'? Why would they do that? Is it possible for you to understand that two educated people can come to different conclusions on the way the government should be run and what should and what shouldn't be banned?

:To sign your posts, do '<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>'. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2008-05-23T21:23:14Z

Gulik: Liberal depravity

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive4]]

== IRC ==

Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

:I'm not sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Leptospirosis ==

Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Martin ==

Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Animals A etc.==
Can you move [[Animals A]] to [[Animal Terms A]]
[[Animals C]] to [[Animal Terms C]]
[[Animals G]] to [[Animal Terms G]]
[[Animals P]] to [[Animal Terms P]]
[[Animals V]] to [[Animal Terms V]]
[[Animals W]] to [[Animal Terms W]]
[[Animals Y]] to [[Animal Terms Y]]
[[Animals Z]] to [[Animal Terms Z]]
? --[[User:Qweki2|Qweki2]] 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Bans?==
What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of [[User:Liberal9188]] and [[User:HHSFake]].. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.
:I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. [[User:HarryWharton|HarryWharton]] 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== So, what's the policy ==

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it ''en masse'' when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them ''en masse'' on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thank you. [[User:Feuerstein|Feuerstein]] 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Why not copy from Wikipedia? ==

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
CLtFn--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Blessings to you on Easter - ==

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Happy Easter and...... ==

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Great example ==

Great example of [[opportunity costs]], Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name-calling==

Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the [[Marketplace of ideas]]. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Deborah ==

Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. [[User:BertSchlossberg]] also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.
:I'll have to look at that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Midrash&oldid=418826] First strike she did. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the link. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Tools ==

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:Haha... oops. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Christianity templates ==

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== ChrisGomez ==
Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. [[User:Peason|Peason]] 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]]
:::It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
::::When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.[[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Cracking the filter==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Francis_%46ukuyama&action=edit&section=1

== Hooray Kansas ==

Congrats, but you do of course know that had Bucknell made it to the tournament this year, and had we played each other, we SO would have knocked you out this year. Again. So you should be thanking us. ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled edit==

Why dod you revert the expelled change?
The sentance 'making one wonder...' is really unencyclopedic
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:It's probably not best to change the wording of the site's creator immediately after putting it there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== A user's page is his castle, huh? ==

You know, just because I may have committed ''lese majeste'' against Blessed St. Ronald is no reason to go messing up the format of my userpage. Which nobody is supposed to mess with, anyway. And I '''do''' think Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's back in 1980. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]

:That doesn't give you the right to be mean spirited or violate the Conservapedia Commandments. And don't be condescending enough to say that I think that Reagan is a saint. I have major problems with his deficit spending policies. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Page move request ==
can you delete [[States of the Unites States of America]] and [[States]] all they do is redirect to a category -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 13:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:[[States of the United States of America]] is linked to from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/States_of_the_United_States_of_America eight other pages]. Deleting it will break those links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:39, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hi! from all of us at AtheistHQ ==
Hi Dan! You missed a few of us, ya big lug! And, on a different subject, you got something against quirky Twin Peaks references? [[User:TrueScouse|TrueScouse]] 23:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I must have missed it - can't say I've ever watched Twin Peaks. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, you ''should'', it's great. For future reference, when someone addresses a tape recorder by name, that's ''probably'' a TP-related joke. Plus, "hit the road jack"? ''That's'' a pretty odd joke as well, wouldn't ya say? [[User:BlueMouse|BlueMouse]] 06:14, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like a troll ==

[[User:Alexjohnc3]]

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=410893 Recent comment]:

<blockquote>
Maybe they're so conservative that they're liberal. Like they go around the whole political spectrum? Or maybe, just maybe, this "encyclopedia" is just a load of BS written "[[Creationists|conservatives]]" who are upset that their beliefs all too often don't match up with reality so they need their own little sand box where they can censor any dissenters and tell themselves they're trustworthy and honest all they want without the threat of having their (crazy) beliefs mocked or criticized by anyone.
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== A major online conservative christian newspaper..... ==

A major online conservative christian newspaper is very interested in regards to Conservapedia's [[atheism]] article and the reporter said she would very likely do a story on it. She said her readers are VERY interested in the subject of atheism and the story that we are promoting our article and that some major Christian internet ministries have started to feature our article is a good story. I am making the conservapedia [[atheism]] article the article of the month which I think fits in nicely with the Expelled controversy. I have sent Andy an email on this matter and I am awaiting an answer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
==Ajdak and Aydak==
Delete
*[[Ajdak]]
*[[Aydak]]

I can't find any information proving these are actually considered deities by any people -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==Wife==
Why the reversion? I have, as requested by Philip, provided Biblical references on which the statement is founded. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Great! ==

Thank God, you came in at the right time!--[[User:MReilly|MReilly]] 15:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Do you really think that God cares about websites? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 15:43, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== IndianaJ ==

Dan, I had a look at his edits and not all of it needs reverting - I would skip the talk pages for example so long as it's not objectionable. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== I'm not a sock ==

I am not a sock. Yes, I am the same person who was TNS 1 and 2, but only because I lost the passwords to those accounts. They are no longer in use. [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== sysop-protected page ==

Hi, [[Lemon Test]] page has been protected: ''*10 February 2008 DanH Protected "Lemon test" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]'' - this page shows up in the list of "uncategorized pages" - requesting unprotect long enough to add a category, thanks! :) [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:04, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:Certainly. I forgot that was still protected. Hopefully three months is long enough. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! :) I added categories, if desired, please feel free to protect again, I'm done there now! -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:15, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ravings from the other side==

Good luck with your finals! [[User:NewHouse|NewHouse]] 22:18, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

My talk page was vandalized, can i report this to you? --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers, ill know that for the future, god bless. --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ans ==
Right, right. I'm so used to pressing "delete" instead of "backspace"... sorry about that. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Ans is French for "years", so it's still a word. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

Did you delete my Conservapedia bias page?
If you did, you're just proving my point. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}
:No, that does not prove your point in any way. Sorry. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
::Yes I did, and do you really expect an "equal airing" on a site called Conservapedia? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:11, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I expected "the facts" but I guess I'll go elsewhere for that. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}

== quick note ==

DanH, in about a minute I am sending you an email I sent Andy and some other conservapedia Sysops. Your input would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:50, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::By the way, I have the vote of Joaquin Martinez and Ed Poor. TerryH read my proposal and has not stated anything for or against my proposal but my guess is that he will be for my proposal based on my previous interaction with TerryH. Do I have your vote for my proposal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:At this point in time, I abstain. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[al Qaeda]] ==

Hi, I'd like to make some changes to the article as described [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl_Qaeda&diff=440525&oldid=286437 here], but the article is locked. Any chance of getting it unlocked? [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:I unlocked it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, changes made. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Hitler==
Why did you delete then restore an article that kills its view count and decreases its ranking-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Because it's an embarrassment to have Adolf Hitler in the top 5 for most viewed pages. It's bad enough that it was done with all the Homosexuality pages. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:55, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Just keep it like that, it will get us more traffic to our site, and I know it looks bad, but it increases rankings -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
*I don't really care if Conservapedia is in the top 10 when you search for Adolf Hitler. It won't be anyway because there are way too many more popular sites that have already climbed the Google rankings. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Userpage ==
If you don't mind me asking, what was that pledge removal thing about?[[User:Moonboots|Moonboots]] 21:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Communism and socialism==

Thanks, Dan. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=459168] I have trouble explaining the distinction between [[Communism]] and [[Socialism]]. Perhaps a chart or table would help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

==Hi==

I noticed you deleted an article on [[Liberal Depravity]] just now for being parody. Although most likely written by a scheming editor, is it not a bit of a double standard to allow articles that scream parody to remain here on this site? I'm referring to Liberal tricks etc. and the homosexual articles.

== Liberal depravity ==

If you didn't like my article, why not improve on it? Surely, nobody reading this site could draw any OTHER conclusion but that Liberals are immoral monsters, driven solely by their disgusting glandular urges and UTTER HATRED of God and America. Fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Water fluoridation

2008-05-23T21:21:05Z

Gulik: New page: '''Water fluoridation''' is the practice of putting Fluorine compounds in drinking water, supposedly to protect against Tooth decay. ==Opposition to water fluoridation== Many oppo...

'''Water fluoridation''' is the practice of putting [[Fluorine]] compounds in drinking water, supposedly to protect against [[Tooth decay]].

==Opposition to water fluoridation==
Many opponents of water fluoridation point to studies showing that the fluorine compounds used are neurotoxic<ref>[http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/ Toxic Chemicals In Your Water]</ref>,
may be ineffective at preventing tooth decay<ref>[http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION]</ref>
and comprises involuntary medical experimentation upon an unsuspecting public<ref>[http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation]</ref>.
The [[John Birch Society]] claimed for years that water fluoridation was a [[Communism|communist]] [[conspiracy|plot]], drawing the mockery of the [[Liberal Media]]<ref>[http://www.jbs.org/node/4440 Colgate — China's Largest Toothpaste Supplier — Says Toxin Laced Product Is "Counterfeit"]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T21:12:14Z

Gulik: /* That's it? */

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::Because they believe [[God]] made humanity, but He subcontracted out the pink bits to [[Satan]]. Or so they seem to act some times... --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Teach the Controversy==
Why is the [[Stork Theory]] not prominently mentioned? I suspect it's the work of [[Liberals]] trying to spread their [[Liberal Depravity]] via [[Sex education]] fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-05-23T21:09:18Z

Gulik:

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Article needs expansion==
While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

'''Sexual intercourse''' is the mechanism by which [[human beings]] [[mate]] and produce [[offspring]]. The [[Penis]] enters the [[Vagina]], the male's [[sperm]] [[fertilises]] the female's [[egg]], and the [[child]] forms in the [[womb]].

There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why do you suppose we might object, if we "can't" object? Can you figure out our motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:58, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:* Give up, huh? Okay, here's the answer, according to one public school teacher in Los Angeles: "If we talk about sex, I'll have to assign sex for homework" [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclassicbrown.com%2FStacey%2520Brown%2Fstandanddeliver.htm&ei=gww3SLH0OaWuigGLk8i-CA&usg=AFQjCNG2Xp-MhfcATeIXfbINzfOxIOG9qA&sig2=2UHD3sF9-KZjV2yrbxJveQ] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not really a relevant response. Children learn about the nuclear fission reaction in science class, but they don't have to build a bomb for homework. Again, I do understand you want all entries to be family-friendly, but surely question #1 in any youth's mind is "Where did I come from?" It's the first 'big' question every child has, and all arrive at it some time. Education behooves every encyclopedia to say ''something'' about sexual reproduction of human beings. It's not 'dirty', it's not 'wrong', it's simply nature and how we all came to be here. To ignore it is Victorian, and we know where that led. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::One final thought on this. I would encourage you to take the view that if you '''don't''' offer your readership ''some'' kind of answer to 'The Big Question', they will go off-site and Lord knows there's no way you would want them typing 'sexual intercourse' into their browser to Google the info, is there? You can easily imagine where they would end up. Why not offer them correct and 'Conservapedia-appropriate' information that you are comfortable with instead of driving them away to find out about it at more salacious sources? If you provide the information, you control how that is presented. Not providing the information is simply encouraging searches at less 'trustable' sources. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you saying that your motivation for expanding the current article is to educate children about where they come from? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, of course. What else could have possibly understood? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Teach the Controversy==
Why is the [[Stork Theory]] not prominently mentioned? I suspect it's the work of [[Liberals]] trying to spread their [[Liberal Depravity]] via [[Sex education]] fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

IMDB

2008-05-23T21:06:17Z

Gulik:

[[IMDB]] ([[Internet]] [[Movie]] [[Database]]) is an online [[encyclopedia]]/reference website used for looking up movies. It is found by many to be very helpful if quick information is needed on a [[movie]] or [[television]] show.

* [http://www.imdb.com IMDB.com]

[[category:websites]]

Lightning

2008-05-23T21:05:22Z

Gulik:

'''Lightning''' is a bright flash of [[electricity]] produced by a [[thunderstorm]]. All thunderstorms produce lightning and are very dangerous. If you hear the sound of [[thunder]], then you are in danger from lightning. Lightning kills and injures more people each year than [[hurricane]]s or [[tornado]]es; between 100 to 200 people. Lightning is an electric current. Within a thundercloud way up in the [[sky]], many small bits of [[ice]] bump into each other as they move around in the [[air]]. All of those collisions create an electric charge. After a while, the whole [[cloud]] fills up with electrical charges. The [[proton]]s form at the top of the cloud and the [[electron]]s form at the bottom. Since opposites attract, that causes a positive charge to build up on the ground beneath the cloud. The grounds electrical charge concentrates around anything that sticks up, such as [[mountain]]s, [[people]], or single [[tree]]s. The charge coming up from these points eventually connects with a charge reaching down from the clouds and lightning strikes.

Lightning being proven to be an electrical phenomenon rather than the [[Wrath of God]] is attributed to [[Benjamin Franklin]]'s experiments in the 1700s.

[[Category:Meteorology]]

Devolution

2008-05-23T21:03:57Z

Gulik:

'''Devolution''' is the granting of powers to a lower level of government, while preserving sovereignty to the granting level. Unlike the federal arrangements of countries such as the [[United States of America]], devolution reserves supreme power to the granting level.

In other words, the granting level (the United Kingdom Parliament) can pass legislation which overrides legislation of the lower level (the Scottish Parliament) and it can even withdraw those powers at any time.

Former schemes of devolution in the United Kingdom: 
*the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 - suspended in 1972
*the Scotland and Wales Acts, 1978 - both were rejected in referenda

Schemes of devolutions which are implemented at present:
*The [[Belfast Agreement]], also known as the ‘Good Friday’ Agreement for Northern Ireland, 1998
*the Scotland Act, 1998
*the Wales Act, 1998

It is important to bear in mind that the level and amount of devolution in these three [[constituent country | constituent countries]] are different, and that [[England]] has no devolved powers.

It can also refer to the idea in [[Creationism]] that all life-forms were created to be perfect, and have been degenerating ever since.

It is also the philosophy of the [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGenius]] band, [[Devo]]. Are we not men?

== See also ==
[[Scottish Parliament]] 
[[Northern Ireland Assembly]] 
[[National Assembly for Wales]]

[[Category: Politics]]
[[Category: British Politics]]

Scurvy

2008-05-23T20:59:05Z

Gulik:

Scurvy is a disease caused by a deficiency in [[vitamin C]] (ascorbic acid). The symptoms include poor wound healing, easy bruising, bleeding and swollen gums leading to the teeth falling out <ref> http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/scurvy/symptoms.htm </ref>.

Scurvy was a major problem in navies prior to the 18th Century when the preservation of fresh fruit was not possible. It was not uncommon for losses to scurvy on ships to outnumber crew members killed in enemy action - Commodore George Anson took six ships and 2000 crew to the Pacific Ocean in the 1740s, and lost five of the ships and two thirds of his men <ref> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/captaincook_scurvy_01.shtml </ref>

A Scottish surgeon called James Lind proved that scurvy could be treated by feeding patients citrus [[fruit]] in 1753 <ref> http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/lind/lind_tp.html </ref>.

[[James Cook]] is often credited as being the first sea captain to eliminate scurvy in his sailors, principally by using sauerkraut (pickled cabbage), although the some people believe his success in doing this has been overstated not least because the vitamin C content of sauerkraut is minimal <ref> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/captaincook_scurvy_05.shtml </ref>

Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy because ascorbic acid provides a hydroxyl group for the hydroxylation of proline residues to from hydroxyproline in the protein collagen. These hydroxyproline residues form hydrogen bonds between chains of collagen, holding them together. Thus in the absence of vitamin C, the collagen chains fall apart, which leads to the weakened connective tissue which causes the scurvy symptoms.

Many mammals are capable of generating their own vitamin C, unlike humans.<ref>[http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2007/06/will-peak-oil-result-in-increased.html Will Peak Oil Result in an Increased Incidence of Scurvy?]</ref>

=References=
<references/>
[[category:diseases]]

Pregnancy

2008-05-23T20:56:25Z

Gulik:

'''Pregnancy''' describes the condition of a mother carrying her unborn offspring. A woman becomes '''pregnant''' when a baby is conceived in her [[womb]]. In humans, pregnancy lasts approximately nine months, after which the baby is born via the [[birth canal]].

See:
*[[human reproduction]]
*[[Abortion]]

[[category:biology]]

Halliburton

2007-03-12T03:05:44Z

Gulik:

'''Halliburton''' is an oil services company, formerly headed by [[American]] [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]. During his administration, both he and the company came under criticism for "[[corruption|sweetheart deals]]" and no-bid contracts. Their headquarters is moving from [[Texas]] to [[Dubai]], in the [[United Arab Emirates]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6440365.stm]</ref>

[http://www.halliburton.com/ Halliburton Corporate Website]

Halliburton

2007-03-12T03:05:34Z

Gulik:

Lilith Gallery

2007-03-12T02:52:09Z

Gulik:

An art gallery in [[Toronto]], [[Canada]], named after a mythical [[Lilith|Baby-strangling demon]].

Religious

2007-03-12T02:51:01Z

Gulik:

A term used to describe a person or object that is related directly or indirectly to an organized [[religion]].

Talk:Sex

2007-03-12T02:50:44Z

Gulik:

I'm confused as to why this page has been blocked. I am aware that its probably subject to much vandalism, but there is a valid reasoning behind allowing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even though the page could be an informative article, it is forbidden (currently) under commandment 3 of [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. It's not "family-friendly". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny, isn't that how families are made? :D --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-12T02:49:18Z

Gulik: /* Aliens? */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.
[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

Natural Law

2007-03-12T02:47:25Z

Gulik:

Natural Law is the concept that there is inherent in nature a set of laws, perhaps created by God, by which humans must adhere to. These laws are considered to be self-evident, in that they are able to been observed by everyone. It is debated whether or not natural law actually exists.

These are distinguished from [[Physical Law]] in that they can be broken or disobeyed, and from [[Federal Law]] by the fact that they seem to have no enforcement agencies.

War on Terrorism

2007-03-12T02:44:04Z

Gulik:

The '''War on [[Terrorism]]''' is a collective term used to refer to several military operations with the stated goal of "ending international terrorism". It's going about as well as those other notable military actions against abstract nouns, the [[War On Drugs]] and the [[War on Poverty]], but much less well than the [[Cold War|War On Communism]].

Terrorism

2007-03-12T02:41:02Z

Gulik:

'''Terrorism''' is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal.

== Well-Known Modern Terrorist Groups ==

* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* The [[IRA|Irish Republican Army]]
* The [[Tamil Tigers]]
* The [[Ku Klux Klan]]

{{stub2}}

Terrorism

2007-03-12T02:40:47Z

Gulik:

'''Terrorism''' is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal.

== Well-Known Modern Terrorist Groups ==

* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* The [IRA|Irish Republican Army]]
* The [[Tamil Tigers]]
* The [[Ku Klux Klan]]

{{stub2}}

Al-Qaeda

2007-03-12T02:37:41Z

Gulik:

'''Al-Qaeda''', [[Arabic]] for "The Base", is an [[Islam|Islamic]] [[Terrorism|terrorist]] organization, which was responsible for the [[9/11|September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks]] on the [[United States]].

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-12T02:30:18Z

Gulik:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest and most controversial war operation in the world. The war started when [[United States|U.S.]] president [[George W Bush]] launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and finding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]]. It is part of the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]].

Religion

2007-03-12T02:28:31Z

Gulik:

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Biblical creation account

2007-03-11T11:57:41Z

Gulik:

The God claimed by the Bible to have created the world is represented by the plural word ''Elohim'' ('the spirits', or 'the gods') in the original Hebrew text of the book of Genesis (compare emboldened text below). Why?

Some scholars have suggested that this reflects a polytheism common in the ancient world, but Christians tend to reject this idea because monotheism, they claim, is emphasized throughout Genesis - even though 'other gods' are in fact frequently referred to by the text of the Old Testament.

Others have suggested that the plural form is referencing angels, but nothing in Genesis suggests that.

Biblical scholars usually adduce the existence and merging of two separate ancient accounts, the one 'Elohist' and plural, the other 'Jahwist' and singular.

Christians, beginning in the Middle Ages, cited the word ''Elohim'' as ancient proof in Hebrew of the existence of the Trinity - i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Some commentators have further referenced this to the beginning of the gospel of John:

''In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.'' (John 1: 1-3)

However, this text says nothing about the Holy Spirit.

The traditional Creation account is to be found at Genesis 1:1-2:1 (NAS) (the verse-divisions are of medieval origin):

''1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

''3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

''6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

''9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, {and} fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

''14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; {He made} the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

''20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

''24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

''26 Then God said, "Let '''Us''' make man in '''Our''' image, according to '''Our''' likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them," Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of on the earth."

''29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, {I have given} every green plant for food"; and it was so.

''31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.''

''Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

This six-day (Hebrew ''yom'') Creation account, in which man is created ''after'' the animals (verses 26-27 above), is contradicted by the version reported in the rest of chapter 2, in which Creation apparently takes only one day (once again, Hebrew ''yom''), and man is created ''before'' the animals (verses 18-19). This fact would tend to back up the biblical scholars' 'two-origin' suggestion above.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Libertarianism

2007-03-11T11:49:19Z

Gulik:

'''Libertarianism''' is a political philosophy emphasizing ''liberty'' and ''property''. A libertarian believes in eliminating most laws concerning moral behavior, including laws against abortion, drug use, same-sex marriage, anticompetitive conduct, trade, and limits on immigration; and in enforcing laws concerning private use of private property. Libertarians tend to attracted to the logical simplicity of the ideas, which, like most [[utopian]] systems such as [[anarchism]] and [[communism]], tend to assume human beings are vastly more honest and rational than most of them act on a daily bassis.

There are more libertarians than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party.

Libertarianism is not the same as conservatism, although some conservatives have adoped libertarian financial rhetoric. Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control, period. Neither the [[Democrat]] nor the [[Republican]] [[parties]] are particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. The Republican party, in particular, although adopting libertarian rhetoric of small government in the [[Reagan]] years (leading to the popular adage "a Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs"), has been active in destroying liberty in the United States, implementing [[big government]] policies antithetical to the libertarian ideals. As an example, libertarians are in general opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of Americans in the interests of enhancing security, while conservatives in general support the USA PATRIOT Act, since security is seen as being more important than personal liberty and privacy.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government intereference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of the libertarian movement.

[[Category:Politics]]

Heretic

2007-03-11T11:37:32Z

Gulik:

A heretic is someone who believes almost the same thing as you.

== KILL THEM. ==

[Category: Religion]

Pope

2007-03-11T11:36:33Z

Gulik:

The Pope (from Latin "papa", father) is the [[head]] of the [[Catholic]] church. Today the pope is [[Pope Benedict XVI]].

Popes can also be found in the [[Discordianism|Discordian Society]], which makes all novices Popes upon their initiation, bestowing upon them moral infallability, the ability to write new Holy Doctrine, and the right to [[excommunicate]] other Discordians, which they usually do immediately.

By reading this message, you are now a Discordian Pope, whether you want to be or not. May [[Eris]] grant you this wisdom to use your totally bogus authority for fun.
[http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/pope_card.pdf You can download and print a Pope Card here.]

[[Category:Religion]]

Eris (mythology)

2007-03-11T11:32:29Z

Gulik:

'''Eris [[Discordia]]''' is the [[Greek]] [[Goddess]] of Chaos, Confusion, Discord, Athletic Competition, Small Press Publications, Pointless Arguments, Hot Dog Buns, and the [[Internet]]. She is currently worshipped by the [[Discordianism|Discordians]], and occasionally placated by the [[Church of the SubGenius]].

[[Category: Religion]]

Discordianism

2007-03-11T11:29:34Z

Gulik:

'''Discordianism''' is the modern religion worship of [[Eris]] [[Discordia]], the Greco-Roman [[Goddess]] of [[Chaos]]. The basic tenets of Discordianism (Somewhat oversimplified) are:

* There is an overabundance of [[order]] in the world, which must be countered by [[chaos]].
* Reality is composed mostly of Chaos, which humans falsely perceive as Order through varying [[Reality]] [[Grids]]. Learning to change grids is the first step towards discarding them altogether and achieving [[Illuminati|Illumination]].
* All phenomena tend to occur in fives or be somehow related to the number 5.
* You must not eat Hot Dog Buns.
* Don't believe anything you read.

The worship of Eris proved quite popular with [[Hippies]] and other members of the [[counterculture]], whose disrespect for authority figures meshed well with the Discordian vision of [[utopian]] [[anarchy]].

The Discordian Society remains active to this day, opposing the [[Illuminati]] and other [[conspiracies]], mostly by attempting to jam their plans with [[misinformation]] and loosen their grip on the collective brainstem of humanity via bizarre pranks.

Ironically, Discordian groups, or [[Cabals]], tend to be extremely [[hierarchical]], with members having elaborate titles and degrees, similar to the [[Masons]] or the [[Catholic]] Church. Typical] titles include things like "The Omnibenevolent Polyfather of Virginity in Gold", "Archbeacon of the Blind", or "Keeper of the Notary Sojak". The commonest rank among Discordians is [[Pope]].

Do You Believe That?

[http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ The Principia Discordia, or ''How I Found Goddess And What I Did To Her When I Found Her'']

[[Category: Religion]]

Illuminati

2007-03-11T11:13:23Z

Gulik: Typo

The '''Illuminati''' are a subversive [[Masonic]] organization, allegedly founded in [[Bavaria]], [[Germany]] by [[Adam Weishaupt]] in the 1700s. Their goal is to take over [[Europe]] (and the rest of the world) and establish a [[one-world government]], while abolishing [[religion]]. The name means "Enlightened Ones", and refers to their belief in super-human knowledge which makes them better-suited to rule the world than the "Normals".

The Illuminati's symbol, the [[Eye in the Pyramid]] appears on the back of the US one-[[Dollar]] bill, leading theorists to suspect some of the [[Founding Fathers]] of being Illuminati operatives or sympathizers. Many of the Founders were [[Masons]], so it's possible some of them could have been Illuminati initiates.

Rapture

2007-03-11T11:11:37Z

Gulik:

The Rapture was an holy event that took place in May of 2003 AD. Jesus came in the air, gathered up the Church from the earth, and then returned to Heaven with the Church.<ref>1 Thessalonians 4:13-18</ref>

Unfortunately for anyone reading this, the only person in the [[United States]] found truly worthy was one 54-year-old beet farmer in [[Iowa]], and nobody even noticed he was gone for three months.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Religion]]

Rapture

2007-03-11T11:11:05Z

Gulik:

The Rapture was an holy event that will took place in May of 2003 AD. Jesus will come in the air, gather up the Church from the earth, and then return to Heaven with the Church.<ref>1 Thessalonians 4:13-18</ref>

Unfortunately for anyone reading this, the only person in the [[United States]] found truly worthy was one 54-year-old beet farmer in [[Iowa]], and nobody even noticed he was gone for three months.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Religion]]

Rapture

2007-03-11T11:10:50Z

Gulik:

Religion

2007-03-11T10:47:51Z

Gulik:

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Religion

2007-03-11T10:47:29Z

Gulik:

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[SubGeniism|SubGenius]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Illuminati

2007-03-11T10:43:12Z

Gulik:

The '''Illuminati''' are a subversive [[Masonic]] organization, allegedly founded in [[Bavaria]], [[Germany]] by [[Adam Weishaupt]] in the 1700s. Their goal is to take over [[Europe]] (and the rest of the world) and establish a [[one-world government]], while abolishing [[religion]]. The name means "Enlightened Ones", and refers to their belief in super-human knowledge which makes them better-suited to rule the world than the "Normals".

The Illuminati's symbol, the [[Eye in the Pyramid]] appears on the back of the US one-[[Dollar]] bill, leading theorists to suspect some of the [[Founding Fathers]] of being Illuminati operatives or sympathizers. Many of the Founders were [[Mansons]], so it's possible some of them could have been Illuminati initiates.

Talk:Original intent

2007-03-11T10:08:29Z

Gulik: /* Original Intent versus Original Understanding */

== Original Intent versus Original Understanding ==
I am not the right person to write teh articles on this, because I can't be sure of how to frame it in a fair and full way, but there really should be a fuller account of "originalism". "Originial Intent" is the attempt to understand what the framers intended with particular text. It suffers from many many problems, like, for example, the fact that different framers thought different things about the same text. A "committee" does not always have a single unified intent. That led to the development of the "original understanding" school of thought. Under that paradign, you do not concern yourself with the disparate intent of everyone involved in drafting and ratifying the text, but you attempt to discern what a hypothetical "reasonable man" (who has had legal training) would have interpreted the text to mean at the time it was ratified. (This approach has the advantage of not relying on "legislative history" in statutory interpretation, because the "reasonable man" is presumed not to have access to it...In effect, Congress can't rely on legioslative history to sneak in an interpretation not set forth clearly in the text of the law itself.) Judge Bork, the ideological grandfather of modern originalism has spoken at length on the issue of why Original Understanding is the superior way to analyze constitutional and statutory provisions. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 05:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem with Original Intent is that while the Founding Fathers were possibly the single smartest group of people ever assembled under one roof, there's no possible way they could have anticipated things like cloning, nuclear weaponry, or computers. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 06:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2007-03-11T09:18:05Z

Gulik:

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Talk:The Lord of the Rings

2007-03-11T08:52:10Z

Gulik: /* How I got Houghton Mifflin to fix the dustjacket */

==How I got Houghton Mifflin to fix the dustjacket==
I was introduced to The Lord of the Rings circa 1963, in college, when it was only available in hardbound, and known to a relatively small group of people. After reading them, I immediately bought ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings,'' which was a very significant expense for a college student. I deeply regret not having preserved the dust jacket of The Hobbit, because I made an interesting discovery. The U. S. edition was, of course, published by Houghton Mifflin. The dustjacket said Houghton Mifflin on it.

But, around the edge of the dustjacket, is a decorative inscription in runes. Unlike the more well-developed fictional languages and alphabets in ''The Lord of the Rings,'' it turned out on inspection to be a direct letter-for-rune transliteration. And the runes said "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, etc. etc. ... and published by George Allen and Unwin." I immediately wrote Houghton Mifflin pointing out their terrible mistake, got a polite reply, and in the next edition the runes, as well as the ordinary letters, said "Houghton Mifflin."

I still have the book, but since I am a reader and not a book collector the dustjackets long ago wore out. I keep meaning to see whether the book collectors noticed the change and whether I would have had a valuable rarity if I'd kept the dustjacket... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:10, 10 February 2007 (EST)

The books are amazing along with the movie. No one can try to make books like that again. They can but not as good. [[Will N.]]

*Darn tootin.' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:53, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*Yep! It's really sickening when people try to imitate Tolkien's masterful writing. A prime example of this is the recently film adapted book, ''Eragon''. Not only does this book copy Tolkien by having races of men, elves, and dwarves, but it even plagarizes many of his names. For example, The main character Eragon falls in love with an elf princess named Arya, their names are way to similar to Aragorn and Arwen. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:24, 11 February 2007 (EST)

It seems that Chritopher Paolini (the author of ''Eragon'') actually borrowed a couple of names directly from Tolkein (such as "Beor" and "Melian") as well as mant ideas, yet his books definately have some very original qualities.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:54, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*Many aspects of Christopher's books are certainly original, and his writing is very good. My sister read the sequel to ''Eragon'', ''Eldest'' and really liked it and encouraged me to give it a try, so I read it rather reluctantly and was pleasantly surprised. Much of the derivative nature of ''Eragon'' has not been continued in ''Eldest'', it was was a very enjoyable read. Christopher Paolini was only fifteen when he wrote ''Eragon'', and I think his writing has gotten much better since then. Anyway, this is getting off topic so I'll be quiet now :) ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)

**It's not necessarily off-topic if someone wanted to add a section on writers who were influenced by ''The Lord of the Rings.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:24, 11 February 2007 (EST)

***You'd have a much easier time finding all the fantasy writers who ''weren't'' influenced by Lord of the Rings. It's be a much smaller list, too. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 04:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you think the ''poetry'' in the Lord of the Rings ("Earendil was a mariner that tarried in Alvernion/He built a boat of timber felled in Nimbrethel to journey in," etc. is pretty awful, though? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:23, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*That bit of poetry is pretty bad, but I think it is supposed to be that way because it is by Bilbo and he's not supposed to be at all good compared to the elves. Many of the other poems in the book are excellent. I especially like the first poem in the chapter called "Farewell to Lorien" (the one that is not in elvish). In short, I think that Tolkien was very skilled in writing poetry, but instead of always writing his best, used poetry as a means to reflect and develop his characters' personalities. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)

When i read ''Eragon'', all i thought was like, this is a version of someone tring to compete or copy Tolkein, i am not done with eldest so dont spoil anything!!! shhhhh!!!! [[Will N.]]

*If you guys like Tolken's poetry then you guys should read The Lays of Beleriand. These two poems, are incredibe and beat all of the poetry in Lord of the Rings by far. One is a love story and one is a tragety. I just suggest that you read the Silmarillion and read the history of Middle Earth first because the poems are poetic remakes of the two stories found in the Silmarillian, Beren and Luthien and Turin Turambar. --[[User:James G.|James G.]] 08:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

*The Lays of Beleriand are excellent, especially the ''Lay of Lethian'' (the one about Beren and Luthien). Tolkien was exceptionally talented to write work like that. As for the prose stories, I like the version of Beren and Luthien in ''The Book of Lost Tales II'' called ''The Tale of Tinuviel'', For Turin Turambar, I like the ''Narn i Hin Hurin'' (the Tale of the Children of Hurin) in ''Unfinished Tales''. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:26, 13 February 2007 (EST)

*I haven't read The tale of Tinuviel yet but I did read the ''Fall of Gondolin''. That was a great battle and I have read ''Narn I Hin Hurin'' and next to ''The Lay of Lethian'' its my favorite of Tolkens works. What really shocks me is how many people read the ''Hobbit'' annd ''The Lord of the Rings'' and think thats it. There is so much more in Tolkens Middle Earth that many people dont know along with deeds like in ''Beren and Luthien'' that make the war of the ring look like a little skirmish.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 10:49, 14 February 2007 (EST)

**Is that in the Silmarillion? I tried to read that once. I couldn't get into it at all... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)

*Yes it is and if you read through the first part of the book dont try to really get. The first time I started to read the Silmarilian I started by skipping Ainulindale and starting in the Valaquenta. That helped me a little.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 08:58, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The Silimarilian is very hard to read. I barely read it. But it is one of Tolkein's great works. [[Will N.]]

*Personaly I think its better than Lord of the Rings by far.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 19:03, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==What About The Bible??==
Why does this article not mention the absolute prohibtion against magic in the Bible? This book, along with Harry Potter, just lures kids in to thinking magic is fun and can be used for good without realizing that its use is an abomination to God, punishable by death. Not that I expect anyone will pick up this book and start casting spells, but it's the first step towards accepting magic as not inherently evil.

Before anyone chimes in, I recognize that Tolkien was a Christian , but he was still evidently not one who was very concerned with saving his readers' souls or bringing the good news to those around him. He preferred to keep his head buried in the occult and in false pagan mythology...not exactly a role model for a conservative.
--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 04:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:I'm not sure what magic you are referring to. The only magical things I can think of off the top of my head are the One Ring and the Palantiri. The One Ring was forged by Sauron, the ultimate force of evil, and its evil power threatens Middle Earth. The Palantiri were at first used for good, but now they have lead to the downfall of both Saruman and Denethor. These are the only examples of magic I can think of, and neither of them would make anyone think magic is fun. Rather, they demonstrate how dangerous it is. I have read The Lord of the Rings numerous times, and have never found anything in it conflicting with my faith. Could you provide me with some examples of non-Christian elements in the Lord of the Rings? Thank you! '''~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)'''

::I agree with you that there is nothing in LOTR that conflicts with christianity, but there are other examples of magic. Gandalf uses it to make fire, Galadreil's mirror is magic, gandalf and the Gandalf and the balrog fight over a door using magic, etc.

::::There are also magic glowing swords, the wizard who create orc soldiers, Galadriel's magical phial that they use to keep the spider at bay, other magic rings (Galadriel had one), Gandalf's magically glowing staff. It's not wall to wall magic, like Harry Potter, but there is magic and the good guys use it without any consideration for the morality of doing so. Some might argue that the fact that someone would say "nothing in LOTR that conflicts with christianity" shows its pernicious and dangerous effects. Magic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Deut 18:10-12 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." Now, I am not suggesting that anyone who likes LOTR is a bad Christian, just that like Harry Potter there is a subtle pro-occult attitude in the stories that conflicts with the express commandments of God. A Christian can read stories of practices that God despises, but he or she should realize what those aspects are and avoid accepting anyone who engages in such sins as "heroic" in the way LOTR suggests they might be. Everyone in those novels seems to be in desperate need of saving, especially anyone who accepts the counsel of Gandalf or the other wizards. I'd argue that Gandalf is the worst of the bunch, because he seems wise and benevolent, when in reality he the is the sort who we are supposed to drive out from our presence (in fact, under Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27, we are commanded to put him to death), lest he should "seduce [us] from the way in which the LORD [our] God commanded [us] to walk." (Deut. 13:5) --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 004:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I seem to recall that Gandalf is the Middle-Earth equivalent of an angel, if that helps at all. I don't know about the elves, though.

Talk:The Lord of the Rings

2007-03-11T08:50:05Z

Gulik: /* What About The Bible?? */

==How I got Houghton Mifflin to fix the dustjacket==
I was introduced to The Lord of the Rings circa 1963, in college, when it was only available in hardbound, and known to a relatively small group of people. After reading them, I immediately bought ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings,'' which was a very significant expense for a college student. I deeply regret not having preserved the dust jacket of The Hobbit, because I made an interesting discovery. The U. S. edition was, of course, published by Houghton Mifflin. The dustjacket said Houghton Mifflin on it.

But, around the edge of the dustjacket, is a decorative inscription in runes. Unlike the more well-developed fictional languages and alphabets in ''The Lord of the Rings,'' it turned out on inspection to be a direct letter-for-rune transliteration. And the runes said "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, etc. etc. ... and published by George Allen and Unwin." I immediately wrote Houghton Mifflin pointing out their terrible mistake, got a polite reply, and in the next edition the runes, as well as the ordinary letters, said "Houghton Mifflin."

I still have the book, but since I am a reader and not a book collector the dustjackets long ago wore out. I keep meaning to see whether the book collectors noticed the change and whether I would have had a valuable rarity if I'd kept the dustjacket... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:10, 10 February 2007 (EST)

The books are amazing along with the movie. No one can try to make books like that again. They can but not as good. [[Will N.]]

*Darn tootin.' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:53, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*Yep! It's really sickening when people try to imitate Tolkien's masterful writing. A prime example of this is the recently film adapted book, ''Eragon''. Not only does this book copy Tolkien by having races of men, elves, and dwarves, but it even plagarizes many of his names. For example, The main character Eragon falls in love with an elf princess named Arya, their names are way to similar to Aragorn and Arwen. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:24, 11 February 2007 (EST)

It seems that Chritopher Paolini (the author of ''Eragon'') actually borrowed a couple of names directly from Tolkein (such as "Beor" and "Melian") as well as mant ideas, yet his books definately have some very original qualities.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:54, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*Many aspects of Christopher's books are certainly original, and his writing is very good. My sister read the sequel to ''Eragon'', ''Eldest'' and really liked it and encouraged me to give it a try, so I read it rather reluctantly and was pleasantly surprised. Much of the derivative nature of ''Eragon'' has not been continued in ''Eldest'', it was was a very enjoyable read. Christopher Paolini was only fifteen when he wrote ''Eragon'', and I think his writing has gotten much better since then. Anyway, this is getting off topic so I'll be quiet now :) ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)

**It's not necessarily off-topic if someone wanted to add a section on writers who were influenced by ''The Lord of the Rings.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:24, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*Don't you think the ''poetry'' in the Lord of the Rings ("Earendil was a mariner that tarried in Alvernion/He built a boat of timber felled in Nimbrethel to journey in," etc. is pretty awful, though? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:23, 11 February 2007 (EST)

*That bit of poetry is pretty bad, but I think it is supposed to be that way because it is by Bilbo and he's not supposed to be at all good compared to the elves. Many of the other poems in the book are excellent. I especially like the first poem in the chapter called "Farewell to Lorien" (the one that is not in elvish). In short, I think that Tolkien was very skilled in writing poetry, but instead of always writing his best, used poetry as a means to reflect and develop his characters' personalities. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 11 February 2007 (EST)

When i read ''Eragon'', all i thought was like, this is a version of someone tring to compete or copy Tolkein, i am not done with eldest so dont spoil anything!!! shhhhh!!!! [[Will N.]]

*If you guys like Tolken's poetry then you guys should read The Lays of Beleriand. These two poems, are incredibe and beat all of the poetry in Lord of the Rings by far. One is a love story and one is a tragety. I just suggest that you read the Silmarillion and read the history of Middle Earth first because the poems are poetic remakes of the two stories found in the Silmarillian, Beren and Luthien and Turin Turambar. --[[User:James G.|James G.]] 08:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

*The Lays of Beleriand are excellent, especially the ''Lay of Lethian'' (the one about Beren and Luthien). Tolkien was exceptionally talented to write work like that. As for the prose stories, I like the version of Beren and Luthien in ''The Book of Lost Tales II'' called ''The Tale of Tinuviel'', For Turin Turambar, I like the ''Narn i Hin Hurin'' (the Tale of the Children of Hurin) in ''Unfinished Tales''. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 09:26, 13 February 2007 (EST)

*I haven't read The tale of Tinuviel yet but I did read the ''Fall of Gondolin''. That was a great battle and I have read ''Narn I Hin Hurin'' and next to ''The Lay of Lethian'' its my favorite of Tolkens works. What really shocks me is how many people read the ''Hobbit'' annd ''The Lord of the Rings'' and think thats it. There is so much more in Tolkens Middle Earth that many people dont know along with deeds like in ''Beren and Luthien'' that make the war of the ring look like a little skirmish.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 10:49, 14 February 2007 (EST)

**Is that in the Silmarillion? I tried to read that once. I couldn't get into it at all... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)

*Yes it is and if you read through the first part of the book dont try to really get. The first time I started to read the Silmarilian I started by skipping Ainulindale and starting in the Valaquenta. That helped me a little.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 08:58, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The Silimarilian is very hard to read. I barely read it. But it is one of Tolkein's great works. [[Will N.]]

*Personaly I think its better than Lord of the Rings by far.--[[User:James G.|James G.]] 19:03, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==What About The Bible??==
Why does this article not mention the absolute prohibtion against magic in the Bible? This book, along with Harry Potter, just lures kids in to thinking magic is fun and can be used for good without realizing that its use is an abomination to God, punishable by death. Not that I expect anyone will pick up this book and start casting spells, but it's the first step towards accepting magic as not inherently evil.

Before anyone chimes in, I recognize that Tolkien was a Christian , but he was still evidently not one who was very concerned with saving his readers' souls or bringing the good news to those around him. He preferred to keep his head buried in the occult and in false pagan mythology...not exactly a role model for a conservative.
--[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 04:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:I'm not sure what magic you are referring to. The only magical things I can think of off the top of my head are the One Ring and the Palantiri. The One Ring was forged by Sauron, the ultimate force of evil, and its evil power threatens Middle Earth. The Palantiri were at first used for good, but now they have lead to the downfall of both Saruman and Denethor. These are the only examples of magic I can think of, and neither of them would make anyone think magic is fun. Rather, they demonstrate how dangerous it is. I have read The Lord of the Rings numerous times, and have never found anything in it conflicting with my faith. Could you provide me with some examples of non-Christian elements in the Lord of the Rings? Thank you! '''~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)'''

::I agree with you that there is nothing in LOTR that conflicts with christianity, but there are other examples of magic. Gandalf uses it to make fire, Galadreil's mirror is magic, gandalf and the Gandalf and the balrog fight over a door using magic, etc.

::::There are also magic glowing swords, the wizard who create orc soldiers, Galadriel's magical phial that they use to keep the spider at bay, other magic rings (Galadriel had one), Gandalf's magically glowing staff. It's not wall to wall magic, like Harry Potter, but there is magic and the good guys use it without any consideration for the morality of doing so. Some might argue that the fact that someone would say "nothing in LOTR that conflicts with christianity" shows its pernicious and dangerous effects. Magic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Deut 18:10-12 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." Now, I am not suggesting that anyone who likes LOTR is a bad Christian, just that like Harry Potter there is a subtle pro-occult attitude in the stories that conflicts with the express commandments of God. A Christian can read stories of practices that God despises, but he or she should realize what those aspects are and avoid accepting anyone who engages in such sins as "heroic" in the way LOTR suggests they might be. Everyone in those novels seems to be in desperate need of saving, especially anyone who accepts the counsel of Gandalf or the other wizards. I'd argue that Gandalf is the worst of the bunch, because he seems wise and benevolent, when in reality he the is the sort who we are supposed to drive out from our presence (in fact, under Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27, we are commanded to put him to death), lest he should "seduce [us] from the way in which the LORD [our] God commanded [us] to walk." (Deut. 13:5) --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 004:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I seem to recall that Gandalf is the Middle-Earth equivalent of an angel, if that helps at all. I don't know about the elves, though.

Michael Moore

2007-03-11T08:46:39Z

Gulik:

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an [[Academy Award]] winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents [[liberal|left wing]] views in a polemical way. He is well-known as an [[atheist]], a [[socialist]] and a member of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He has been an outspoken critic of the administration of President [[George W Bush]].

Some of his work includes the documentary films ''Farenheit 9/11'', ''Roger and Me'', and ''Bowling for Columbine'', and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American''. and ''Stupid White Men''.