The '''Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty''' (or '''SALT I''' to be more precise), was a binding [[Cold War]] treaty between the [[United States]] and the [[Soviet Union]] aimed at limiting the deployment and proliferation of [[ICBM]]'s. The SALT I limited the U.S. and the Soviet Union to their 1972 levels of [[ballistic missile]]s.

[[category:diplomacy]]
[[category:Treaties]]
[[category:Cold War]]

Talk:Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

2013-07-19T00:53:30Z

JAnderson: /* Quality control */

Sounds frightening. Is there any known cure? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 21:40, 20 November 2010 (EST)
:::Thanks for the input. I just added a section to the essay entitled '''Treatment of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'''. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:20, 20 November 2010 (EST)
[[File:Dog with a bone.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|If you think taking a bone away from a dog is hard, try getting a [[liberal]] with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] to stop thinking about [[Conservapedia]]!
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsand/4589825889/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

== lol ==

I love you people. we need to get you all a tv show.. ratings would be big!! [[User:Xoxoxoxo|Xoxoxoxo]] 18:13, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==Should it be noted==
That COCD can afflict conservatives as well? If an obsessive compulsion with Conservapedia caused people to read the Bible less, would we censor that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Dog photos ==
I love dogs as much as the next guy but having them all over this article both takes away from the point, and makes Conservapedia look a little... childish? Thoughts? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 23:50, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Quality control ==

This should not pass it. This is the lowest quality article I have seen on any wiki. It's an affront to the brilliance of so many other articles on CP. I will ask ASchlafly whether this can be deleted. Any thoughts? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 23:51, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::Sure. I suggest testing the validity of your purported evolutionary worldview by debating [[VivaYehshua]]. The debate will be recorded and distributed widely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:55, 15 July 2013 (EDT)
:::VivaYeshua got banned from that chatroom. I went looking for him the other day, while I was banned by MarkMan. How about I debate you? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 08:23, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Two things: A Conservapedian told me that the report that [[VivaYehshua]], who I believe is still a moderator of [[Shockofgod]]'s chat room, is a false report. He inquired about this matter in the [http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 Shockofgod's chat room]. I never believed this false report as VivaYehshua has never been disruptive in the chat room and that is why he was picked as a moderator. Second, please read [[User:Conservative/Conservapedia "evolutionists"|THIS]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
:::It isn't an article (thankfully), but rather an "essay" where user:Conservative is free to post his taunts. The rules for essays are more lenient, and thus, according to the commandments, this essay is fine. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:38, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal. I think Bible believers are free to taunt the proud and often boastful adherents of the religions of atheism, evolutionism and liberalism. Especially, since they foist their religions on the public via taxpayer dollars (public schools, etc.) and practice strong arm tactics to suppress alternative views. See: [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

Of course, there is a time and place for everything and lately I have taunted adherents of these religions less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

:Brenden, does that mean I could create an essay page "taunting" Conservative? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 20:53, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

2013-07-17T12:23:53Z

JAnderson: /* Quality control */

Louis XVI

2013-07-15T14:36:32Z

JAnderson: Better fit for the context

[[Image:CALLET-Louis-XVI.jpg|thumb|300px|right|King Louis XVI of France]]
'''Louis XVI''' (1754-1793) was the king of [[France]] (1774-1792) who lost his throne during the [[French Revolution]] and was later beheaded by the revolutionaries, as was his wife Queen [[Marie Antoinette]]. After a century of wars and financial mismanagement, France was still large, rich and powerful, but could no longer pay its bills, or the exorbitant costs of royalty and aristocracy. Louis XVI, a weak administrator, attempted some tax relief and reforms, but was frustrated by opposition by the upper class and judges.

Louis XVI provided critical financial aid to the Americans, and joined in their war against the [[United Kingdom]], 1778-83. This helped the Americans to win, but further drained the remaining credit of the French government. To raise money, in 1788 the king was forced to call into session a long-dormant representative governmental body called the Estates-General. On July 14, 1789, Parisians seized the notorious prison, the [[Bastille]]. The king attempted to escape, but was caught and imprisoned in 1791.
In 1792, the new government declared France a republic and ordered the execution of Louis XVI by [[guillotine]] on January 21, 1793.

==Family==
He was the grandson of King [[Louis XV]] and the third son of Louis, Dauphin of France, and of his second wife the Dauphiness, Marie Josèphe of Saxony. Born at Versailles on Aug. 23, 1754, he was baptized Louis Augustus, and during the lifetime of Louis XV bore the title of the Duke of Berry. He was tutored in religion, literature, science, mathematics, history, drawing, music, and foreign languages, and taught that he should defer to his older brother, who would become king. The man never outgrew the shyness and dullness of the boy; he was best at his locksmith hobby, or out hunting.

He was not expected to become king, but two older brothers died. Then in 1765 his father died and he became the Dauphin of France and heir to the throne. In 1767 his mother died. In 1770 his grandfather arranged a marriage alliance between the Bourbon and Hapsburg dynasties, and Louis Augustus was married at Versailles to an Austrian archduchess, [[Marie Antoinette]] (1755–93), daughter of Maria Theresa and the Emperor Francis I.<ref> At the wedding festivities, 132 people were killed when the crowd panicked. This eerie precursor to later history was hushed up by the police at the time.</ref> Their unhappy marriage remained unconsummated for seven years, as the queen surrounded herself with a dissolute clique and threw herself into a life of pleasure and careless extravagance. The personalities of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette helped undermine the prestige of the French monarchy and bring about the French Revolution. Louis lacked self-confidence, leadership abilities, and social skills. Marie Antoinette, conversely, appeared both frivolous and strong-willed. As a foreigner and a woman she offended the French by appearing to rule her husband. The seven-year delay in consummating their marriage led to malicious satire that Louis was impotent and Marie Antoinette promiscuous. When they did have children, their paternity was questioned. The public press portrayed Marie Antoinette as a whore or beast, and Louis as a cuckold, a drunk, and an idiot. Given the extraordinary times in which they lived, their personalities were fatal for the future of France and themselves.<ref> Nancy N. Barker, and commentary by James Friguglietti, "Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette: Revolutionary Personalities?" ''Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History'' 1992 19: 119-127. Issn: 0099-0329 </ref>

==King==
On May 10, 1774 [[Louis XV]] died, and his 19-year-old grandson succeeded to the throne as Louis XVI. At first the youthful king was popular with his subjects. Under Louis XV a Triumvirate had controlled the government and fought against the Parlements. Louis XVI restored the Parlements and removed the triumvirs from their posts.<ref> William O. Doyle, "The Parlements of France and the Breakdown of the Old Regime, 1771-1788." ''French Historical Studies'' 1970 6(4): 415-458. Issn: 0016-1071</ref>

Louis XVI's appointment of [[Turgot]] (1727–81) as controller-general of finances seemed to presage the beginning of a period of reform of the political, economic, and social structure of France. The reforms were too little and too late, as his reign marked the culmination of long-term financial difficulties which for decades had sapped the financial stability of the government.

A weak and vacillating leader, Louis XVI proved incapable of pursuing any consistent policy. A series of finance ministers worsened the fiscal crisis, which led to louder and more urgent demands by supporters of liberal reforms. Turgot’s program—"No bankruptcy, no increase in taxes, no borrowing, but economy"—demanded stringent reforms, so he abolished some monopolies, tried to reform the extraordinarily wasteful system of farming the taxes (i.e. having private persons collect them for a fee), and drastically cut spending; he managed to reduce part of the public debt. In 1774 his restoration of free circulation of grain inside the country antagonized the grain speculators; it was followed by a crop failure and widespread bread riots, as Turgot's popularity plunged. Turgot was ousted in 1776, and replaced by [[Jacques Necker]] as director of the treasury, who had the king's support.
===American Revolution===
In spring 1776 Vergennes, the Foreign Secretary, saw an opportunity to humiliate arch-foe Britain by supporting the [[American Revolution|American revolt]]. Louis XVI was convinced by [[Benjamin Franklin]] to send financial aid and large quantities of munitions, sign a formal treaty of alliance in 1778, and go to war with Britain. Spain and the Netherlands joined the French. The Americans gained their independence, and the war ministry rebuilt the French army. However, the British sank the main French fleet in 1782 and France gained little from the Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the war,<ref> France gained the colonies of Tobago and Senegal.</ref> except the war cost 1,066 million livres, financed by new loans at high interest (with no new taxes). Necker however concealed the crisis from the public (explaining only that ordinary revenues exceeded ordinary expenses, and not mentioning the loans.) After he was forced from office in 1781 new taxes were levied.<ref>On finance see William Doyle, ''Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989) p 67-74 </ref>

===Financial crises===
Necker’s attempt to gain greater control over policy by courting public opinion was rebuffed at court, and he quit in May, 1781. Necker’s successors Charles Alexandre de Calonne (1783–87) had to
borrow another 653 millions. Almost half the annual revenue was absorbed by debt-service, and the government borrowed against next year's anticipated revenue. France simply lacked a taxation system that would support its mounting debts, in contrast to Britain which successfully handled its debt. The powerful Parlement of Paris objected vehemently. To deal with the looming bankruptcy de Calonne proposed an elaborate set of new taxes. Louis XVI called an Assembly of Notables in 1787, but this body, generally hostile to reform, refused to raise taxes. Louis XVI alienated the notables by proclaiming his absolute powers to order a new loan; he tried to disable the parlements. This was no longer acceptable, and the parlements began defying the king. Even the clergy joined in.
===Escalating political crisis===
With the financial crisis growing worse, the treasury empty, prices soaring, and his political support eroding, the king had to retreat. Absolutism had failed and the nation increasingly demanded a new structure of government. Necker came back as a caretaker and recognized the irresistible demands for leadership by a higher authority, the [[Estates General]]; the kings had not allowed it to meet in 175 years. The representation of the Third Estate (businessmen or "bourgeoisie") was doubled, as this powerful new element was soon to dominate the government. Its position was explained by Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) whose pamphlet "What is the Third Estate?" (Jan. 1789) argued that there was no place for privileged groups of any sort. The third estate, which had counted for zero in politics, ought to be in control. A nation, Sieyès declared, was a body of associates living under a common law, and privileges by definition were exceptions to common law. The nobility were a caste of idle, burdensome usurpers, and there should be no question of allowing them to be chosen as third-estate deputies. Finances soon became secondary as profound constitutional issues took the stage and the king's power faded; the French Revolution was put in motion.<ref>William Doyle, ''Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989) ch 3-4</ref>

==French Revolution==
see also [[French Revolution]]

In the Estates General a sharp quarrel broke out between representatives of the two privileged orders, the clergy and the nobility, and the members of the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie. Conceivably if Louis XVI had definitely taken the part of the bourgeoisie he might have recovered his strength, but he was dominated by conservative aristocrats at court and eventually decided upon the use of military force to destroy the reform movement. Necker was dismissed but before the king acted the Parisians, fearing a coup d'etat, rose in rebellion on July 14, 1789. They captured and sacked the [[Bastille]], an ancient fortress and prison in Paris which to many symbolized the despotism of the Bourbon regime. Early in October 1789, a Parisian mob went to [[Versailles]] and forced the royal family and the [[National Assembly]] (as the Estates General was then called) to return with them to Paris.

The royal family (Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and their two children) were placed under strict guard in the palace of the Tuileries. In June 1791 Louis disguised his family and fled to the eastern frontier to join an army of émigrés assembled there with which he hoped to bring about a counterrevolution. At Varennes the royal family was intercepted and brought back to the Tuileries as a state prisoner. The episode was a turning point in the French Revolution; it led radical factions to call for the end of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. It escalated tensions across Europe as the revolutionary government initiated more repressive measures against nobles, emigrants, and refractory clergy. The attempted escape increased fears of foreign wars and paranoia about antirevolutionary plots and conspiracies, which in turn led to more state-sponsored violence and hastened the terror.<ref> Timothy Tackett, "The Flight to Varennes and the Coming of the Terror." ''Historical Reflections'' 2003 29(3): 469-493. Issn: 0315-7997 </ref>

Meanwhile, the National Assembly continued its political and economic reorganization of the French state. In September 1791 Louis XVI was forced to assent to the Constitution of 1791 which created a limited monarchy; royal powers were sharply curtailed. The secret opposition of Louis XVI to the progress of the Revolution, however, and the intrigues of his wife and the aristocrats continued. On Aug. 10, 1792, a Parisian insurrection caused Louis and his family to be interned in the Temple. In September the monarchy was abolished and the republic proclaimed. Evidence of the king's intrigues with foreign enemies was uncovered and in December 1792 Louis was formally arraigned by the Convention for conspiracy against the liberty of the country and attempts against state security. The prevailing political theory was that the king had two bodies: a natural body and a political body. The defenders of Louis XVI pleaded the inseparability of the two bodies. Thus the Girondins only wanted to condemn the natural body since this held open the possibility of a postponement because Louis XVI was as guilty as any other. The Montagnards wanted to condemn both the natural body and the political body. Found guilty by a unanimous vote, he was sentenced to death by a vote of 361 to 288, with 72 calling for a delay; he was publicly guillotined in Paris on the morning of Jan. 21, 1793. Marie Antoinette was guillotined Oct. 16, 1793, and the young dauphin (known as Louis XVII) (1785-1795?) was given over to a poor family and apparently died in 1795. Louis XVI's younger brother Louis XVIII (1755-1824) became King of France after the abdication of [[Napoleon]] in 1814.
==Image and memory==
The regicide has loomed as a shadow over French history. The 19th-century historian, [[Jules Michelet]], attributed the restoration of the French monarchy to sympathy engendered by the execution. Michelet's ''Histoire de la Révolution Française'' and Alphonse de Lamartine's ''Histoire des Girondins,'' in particular, showed the marks of the feelings aroused by the revolution's regicide. Though these two writers did not share the same sociopolitical vision, they agreed that though the monarchy was rightly ended in 1792 but the lives of the royal family should have been spared. Lack of compassion at that moment contributed to a radicalization of revolutionary violence and to greater divisiveness among Frenchmen. Because Louis XVI was a merciful man, the revolutionaries' passions needed to be balanced by compassion and by less fanatical sentiments. For 20th century novelist [[Albert Camus]] the execution signaled the end of the role of God in history, for which he mourned. For 20th century philosopher [[Jean-Francois Lyotard]] the regicide was the starting point of all French thought, the memory of which acts as a reminder that French modernity began under the sign of a crime.<ref> See Susan Dunn, ''The Deaths of Louis XVI: Regicide and the French Political Imagination.'' (1994). </ref>

The duchess of Angoulême, daughter of Louis XVI, survived and lobbied Rome energetically for the canonization of her father as a saint of the Catholic Church. Despite his signing of the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy," Louis had been described as a martyr by Pope Pius VI in 1793. In 1820, however, a memorandum of the Congregation of Rites in Rome, declaring the impossibility of proving that Louis had been executed for religious rather than political reasons, put an end to hopes of canonization.

====Notes====
<references/>
==Bibliography==

* Baecque, Antoine De. "From Royal Dignity to Republican Austerity: the Ritual for the Reception of Louis XVI in the French National Assembly (1789-1792)." ''Journal of Modern History'' 1994 66(4): 671-696. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801%28199412%2966%3A4%3C671%3AFRDTRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B in Jstor]
* Burley, Peter. "A Bankrupt Regime." ''History Today'' (Jan 1984) 34:36-42. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext in [[EBSCO]]
* Doyle, William. ''Origins of the French Revolution'' (3rd ed. 1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Doyle, William. "The Execution of Louis XVI and the End of the French Monarchy." ''History Review.'' (2000) pp 21+ [http://www.questia.com/read/5001205429 online edition]
* Dunn, Susan. ''The Deaths of Louis XVI: Regicide and the French Political Imagination.'' (1994). 178 pp.
* Hardman, John. ''Louis XVI: The Silent King'' (1994) 224 pages, the standard scholarly biography
* Hardman, John. ''French Politics, 1774-1789: From the Accession of Louis XVI to the Fall of the Bastille.'' (1995). 283 pp.
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Padover, Saul K. ''The Life and Death of Louis XVI'' (1939) [http://www.questia.com/read/3921322 online edition]
* Price, Munro. ''The Road from Versailles: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and the Fall of the French Monarchy'' (2004) 425 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Road-Versailles-Antoinette-French-Monarchy/dp/0312326130/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204094811&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]; also published as ''The Fall of the French Monarchy: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Baron de Breteuil.'' (2002)
* Rigney, Ann. "Toward Varennes." ''New Literary History'' 1986 18(1): 77-98. Issn: 0028-6087; [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-6087%28198623%2918%3A1%3C77%3ATV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 in Jstor], on historiography
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Tackett, Timothy. ''When the King Took Flight.'' (2003). 270 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/When-King-Flight-Timothy-Tackett/dp/B000F4LMP8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204095353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Primary sources===
* Marie Antoinette. ''Memoirs of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and Wife of Louis XVI: Queen of France'' (1910) [http://books.google.com/books?id=hl1EAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:louis+intitle:xvi&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&ei=TvzER5nAIYjysgPdx9WhCA complete edition online]
* Doyle, William, ed. ''Old Regime France'' (2001)
[[Category:French Monarchs]]
[[Category:French Revolution]]
[[Category:French History]]

Liberal Party of Australia

2013-07-15T14:34:34Z

JAnderson:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_articletitle = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_logo = [[Image:Lpa.jpg|200px|"The Liberal Party of Australia logo"]]
| website = [http://www.liberal.org.au/ www.liberal.org.au/]
| headquarters = Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St, Barton [[Canberra]] 2600
| chairman = [[Alan Stockdale]]
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Tony Abbott]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Julie Bishop]]
| foundation = 1944
| ideology = [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Social conservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Blue]]
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Liberal Party of Australia''' is the main [[conservative]] political party based in the Commonwealth of [[Australia]]. The Liberal Party was founded in 1944 by [[Robert Menzies|Sir Robert Menzies]]. Robert Menzies kept the Liberal Party in power during much of the post-war boom. As with many other Western democracies the winds of change swept through Australia and the Liberal Party was ousted from power by [[Gough Whitlam]] and the [[Australian Labor Party]] in 1972.

The Liberals in general believe in minimal interference by the government in the economy and are understood to be more socially conservative than their more left wing political opposition, the [[Australian Labor Party]] and the Australian Greens. Thus in this sense, the term "liberal" refers to neo-liberalism rather than the social liberalism that is implied in the American context.

Until the 1970s the Liberal Party occupied the centre of Australian politics. However, the breakway of left-wing groups meant that the Liberals have moved to the right of politics with the Labor Party occupying the centre-left.

The Liberal Party is divided into state-based divisions. The Liberals contest both local, state and federal elections
The current leader of the Liberal Party is [[Tony Abbott]]<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm</ref>, while Julie Bishop serves as deputy leader.

==Government==

The Liberal Party is one of the two main parties of government at both state and federal level. Although it was the principal government party at federal level from 1996 to 2007, by the end of that period it had lost power to the Labor Party in every state and territory. Its low point arrived in November 2007 when it lost the federal election, leaving itself out of power nationwide. However since Labor took office federally, the Liberals have returned to power in the state of [[Western Australia]] and [[Victoria]].

==Possible Merger==
In March 2008, the then leader of the federal Liberal Party, [[Brendan Nelson]], indicated that he was in favour of a merger between his party and the [[National Party of Australia|National Party]]. <ref>http://news.theage.com.au/nelson-stakes-leadership-on-merger/20080309-1y5t.html</ref>

== Reference ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Member of the International Democrat Union]]

Devil

2013-07-15T14:28:38Z

JAnderson: /* Other names for the devil */

'''Devil''' (from the Greek word διαβολοξ (diábolos), which means "one who throws things around" in the sense of creating the chaos, or "slanderer" in the sense of name-calling or "throwing" false accusations), is the name given to the unseen personification of evil.

By causing chaos, the devil leads people away from God and sometimes even to curse God.

During the [[Three Temptations of Christ]], the '''devil''' explains how the world is his dominion. This amounts to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], as the world is fundamentally uncertain and chaotic according to [[quantum mechanics]].

The term "devil" is often used synonymously with the term [[Lucifer]] or [[Satan]], although Satan has the connotation of a personal evil while the devil is a common name for demons or evil spirits.

==Etymology==
The word has its origins with the early Hebrews during the Exodus from Egypt. The local religions they encountered when they entered into Canaan included tales of the demon spirits (''sa ir'' שעירים, "hairy ones" or "saytrs", Isaiah 13:21) of the desert, whose influence could be averted due to sacrifice. Despite being told to ''"...put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD,"'' (Joshua 24:14) many had accepted this superstition and sacrificed goats on the Canaanite and other altars. From this came the Herew word ''ha-satan'' שָׂטָן, the root word of "Satan".

==Other names for the devil==
There are many pseudonyms used for the Devil, sometimes to clarify his nature and other times with the effect of obscuring his evil:

*Beelzebub (Hebrew: ba'al zevuv בעל זבוב; "Lord of the Flies")
*Baphomet, originally a [[Templar]] image, portrayed by a goat-headed man
*Ba'al
*the Prince of Darkness
*Old Nick, from a character in ''The Devil and Tom Walker''
*Pazuzu, ancient Sumerian and Babylonian demon-god, best known for its appearance in the film ''The Exorcist'' (1973).

===Inaccurate===

*[[Lucifer]]
*[[Satan]]

==See also==
* [[Satan]]

[[category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Public

2013-07-15T14:24:32Z

JAnderson:

'''Public''' is that which occurs in front of others or is open to outside scrutiny.

Often the term '''public''' refers to taxpayer-funded, as in [[public schools]].

[[Category: Sociology]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-15T14:23:32Z

JAnderson: /* 15th seed */ new section

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states:
::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.
::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html
--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

==Variability of the Speed of Light==

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics". ==

What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a page, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

:I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this. No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the [[Wimbledon]] results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly. Thanks for the insight. [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 15:22, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::What insight? To suggest that ''anyone'' who gets as far as Wimbledon isn't an "expert" is vacuous at best. The "best of the public" are playing tennis in their gardens or at the local club. The only thing they do at Wimbledon is watch. Every single player there is by any reasonable definition an expert. --[[User:ECornwell|ECornwell]] 17:21, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Why stop there? Why not say that the "public" are people who are playing tennis for the first time. Then we can be sure the public won't win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:07, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:ok so who isn't public? Just players who have won before?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::"Experts" are people like tenured college professors, a select few whom liberals claim know more than anyone else. For athletes, "experts" are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts, but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::You're insane.--[[User:ErinTH|ErinTH]] 19:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::::I'd have to second Erin here. You do understand that "effort" without results isn't rewarded in sports, right? Particularly tennis has nothing to do with effort - it has to do with who has had the most success in tournaments.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:06, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
:::I get what Mr Schlafly is saying, but I think I would label the concept differently. The public in this sense are those who are not well known within the general population but only within their own sport. Serena Williams is well known throughout the world. I would guess their are those who know who she is but unaware she is a tennis player whilst Marion Bartoli is not well known outside the tennis community and her home country. So maybe she is public-plus or expert-minus as she has made over 8 million dollars during her career--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 23:35, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::::And I guess Serena Williams used to be "best of the public" before she became well known. After that she was an "expert". --[[User:HyramF|HyramF]] 23:44, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

2013-06-29T23:07:56Z

JAnderson: /* Doubling */ new section

Tour de France

2013-06-29T23:02:30Z

JAnderson: Little Update

The [[Tour de France]] is a famous cycling race, held annually in [[France]] during the month of July. The Tour de France, [[Giro d'Italia]], and [[Vuelta a Espagne]] are referred to as the [[Grand Tours]] of professional cycling. The course of the race changes from year to year, often passing through neighboring countries, but traditionally finishes on the [[Champs-Elysees]] in [[Paris]]. The tour often starts in countries other than France to create more publicity.

The Tour de France was first run in 1903, and has been completed every year since, except for the war years 1915 - 1918 and 1940 - 1946.

The Tour de France is a stage race; that is, it consists of a series of one-day races over different routes, with the overall winner determined by the combined time from all events, with bonus and penalty times removed and added. The race is typically composed of 20 or 21 stages and a short prologue time trial, with some stages being flat and others being hugely mountainous.

Riders who compete in the Tour de France are members of corporate-sponsored teams of nine riders. These nine riders work together to help the team leader or other team members to increase their standing. Two teams competing in the 2013 Tour de France were based in the United States: BMC Racing and Garmin-Sharp

Riders in the Tour de France compete in several different competitions; the leader of each competition is awarded a jersey at the end of each stage race. The [[Yellow Jersey]] is awarded to the overall race leader. The Green Jersey is awarded to the leader of the points competition, in which points are awarded to riders winning a series of sprint races. The Polka-dot Jersey is awarded to the "King of the Mountains" leader, given to the rider who has the best record climbing designated hills and mountains in the race. The White Jersey is awarded to the "Best Young Rider", the rider under the age of 25 with the highest placement in the overall race standings.

[[Greg Lemond]] was the first American to win the Tour, in 1986. Lemond won again in 1989 and 1990. American [[Lance Armstrong]] won the race a record seven times from 1999 to 2005. While the French media often accused Armstrong of steroid use, such claims were never supported by his drug test results, however, in 2012 Armstrong was stripped of all results and victories since 1998, and the 7 Tours he won now have no victor. The 2006 winner was another American, [[Floyd Landis]], however his victory was contested due to a failed drug test following a stage victory. The controversy came after a number of riders, including race favorites [[Ivan Basso]] and [[Jan Ullrich]], were banned from competing in the race just a few days before it began due to allegations of steroid use. Landis was eventually stripped of his title, and Spanish rider [[Oscar Pereiro]] became the 2006 winner. The most recent Tours have been won by English Speakers[[Cadel Evans]] (2011) and [[Bradley Wiggins]] (2012). American [[Lance Armstrong]] returned to professional cycling and competed in the 2009 Tour, finishing third behind Alberto Contador of [[Spain]] and [[Andy Schleck]] of [[Luxembourg]].<ref>http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/LIVE/us/2100/classement/index.html</ref>

An up to date list of Tour winners is here: <ref>http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfindex.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cycling]]

Anti-Americanism

2013-06-29T22:54:00Z

JAnderson:

[[File:US Iran.gif|right]]
'''Anti-Americanism''' is hostility towards the people, policies and culture of [[United States of America]].

Many Islamist and Marxist regimes are noted for their anti-American sentiments- often disguised as criticism of the War on Terror. Those with anti-American sentiments often lack the liberty celebrated in America and therefore hate America because of the freedoms available to the American people, and many are liberals who believe that other nations are equal to or beyond America in their achievements. There are some others who envy America's military might and ability to spread democracy who dislike America for doing so.

"Anti-Americanism is not only the world’s most pernicious and ubiquitous ideology — it is also the most tenacious. In fact, it has taken on some aspects of a religion." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/news/america-s-moral-authority</ref>

"Anti-Americanism is not only the world’s most pernicious and ubiquitous ideology — it is also the most tenacious. In fact, it has taken on some aspects of a religion." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/news/america-s-moral-authority America’s Moral Authority], Daniel Johnson, ''[[New York Sun|The New York Sun]]'', May 1, 2008</ref>

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today." <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0721/017.html Anti-Americanism Is Racist Envy], Paul Johnson, ''[[Forbes|Forbes.com]]'', July 21, 2003</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/anti-americanism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Anti-Americanism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

National Organization for Marriage

2013-06-28T12:05:31Z

JAnderson:

The '''National Organization for Marriage''' is against redefining marriage and in favor of [[marriage]] as "the union of husband and wife".
They believe this will protect the institution of marriage. The organisation's leader, Brian S. Brown, strongly opposed the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling on [[DOMA]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/26/supreme-court-issues-two-illegitimate-decisions-on-same-sex-marriage/ Brian S. Brown response to DOMA ruling]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nationformarriage.org Official Site]

[[category:Political Organizations]]

National Organization for Marriage

2013-06-28T12:05:09Z

JAnderson:

JAnderson: Updated some players

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league and then became a benchwarmer in the French League. His own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Tom Brady]] — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value. [[Pro-life]] [[Tim Tebow]] is a far better athlete and speaker.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points merely because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — over-promoted by the media to an absurd extent, LeBron has repeatedly underachieved in key playoff games and failed to win the scoring title despite constantly being given the ball. Christian star Kevin Durant, who outscored LeBron (and Kobe) in the Olympics, and other players are as good or better.
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning eventually caused a humiliatingly early exit for the Broncos from the 2013 playoffs by throwing two big interceptions.
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season and continuing to perform poorly in the 2012-2013 season. When Tebow came to the Jets, [[liberals]] championed the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career. As a result, Tebow was forced out of the Jets team and released at the end of the 2012-13 season.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — Hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates. The lamestream media adores her for her participation in controversial GoDaddy television advertisements.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
#[[Lewis Hamilton]] - [[Affirmative Action]] race driver.
#[[Lionel Messi]] - Stands accused of criminal tax evasion.
#[[Usain Bolt]] - Will never run the times of 2009 again.
#[[Sebastian Vettel]] - Beneath the nice guy exterior lies a deceitful, win at all costs person who thinks he is above following orders.

== See also ==

*[[Conservapedia Proven Right]]

[[Category:sports]]

Scientist

2013-06-12T11:58:06Z

JAnderson: /* Science and Christianity */ added paleontology to junk science

A '''scientist''' is someone who practices [[science]].

== Scope of term ==

Depending on the [[context]], the term "scientist" might refer to anyone using the [[scientific method]] or anyone with a qualification in a field of science.
In most cases, both will be true, but in other cases only one or the other may be true.

== Origin of term ==

The invention of the word ''scientist'' is often credited to [[William Whewell]] (1794-1866), who was himself a scientist as well as a moral [[philosopher]] and [[Anglican]] priest. In 1858, he wrote:

:As we cannot use ''physician'' for a cultivator of [[physics]], I have referred to him as a ''Physicist.''
:We need very much[sic] a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a ''Scientist.'' Thus we might say that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.<ref>Whewell, William (1858), ''Novum Organon Renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences,'' J. W. Parker and Son, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22881657&id=xYMKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA14-PA338&lpg=RA14-PA338&dq=%22william+whewell%22+scientist p. 338]</ref>

Prior to this, scientists were usually called "natural philosophers" or "natural historians." (The oldest scientific journal in the world, established in 1665, is entitled ''Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.'' Among its early numbers are letters from Leeuwenhoek describing his discovery of [[microorganism]]s).

== Science and Christianity ==

Many scientists have been devout Christians or held a belief in God ([[Isaac Newton]]<ref> http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html</ref> or monk Gregor Mendel<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html</ref>). Modern science has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience. Instead readily embracing [[liberal logic]] and pseudo or [[junk science]] such as [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity|relativity]], [[global warming]], [[paleontology]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]] based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates [[creation]]. Consequently the rigid [[logic]] of [[creation science]] is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science. A 1998 study indicates that among U. S. scientists belief in God has declined between 1914 and 1998, with 7% believing, 72.2% disbelieving, and 20.8% professing doubt or agnosticism.<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Professions]]