Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Oliver Cowdery

2010-01-29T03:20:08Z

JFPerry: typo corrections

[[Image:Oliver Cowdery.jpg|thumb|right|Oliver Cowdery Daguerreotype Recently Found in the Library of Congress]]
'''Oliver Cowdery''' (3 October 1806 – 3 March 1850) was a school teacher who transcribed the majority of the [[Book of Mormon]] while [[Joseph Smith]] translated the reformed Egyptian on the golden plates.<ref> Oliver Cowdery describes these events as follows: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’" [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/note Joseph Smith - History Footnote]</ref> Cowdery was one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon's golden plates. <ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss The Testimony of Three Witnesses]</ref> When the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] was organized on April 6, 1830, Oliver Cowdery was one of the original six members. Although Oliver spent ten years out of the Church, he returned to the Church in 1848 and died in full-fellowship in 1850. <ref>[http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/projects/cowdery.htm Oliver Cowdery Commemorative Events and Symposium], Mormon Historic Sites Foundation</ref> He died at the home of [[David Whitmer]] in [[Richmond]], [[Missouri]], on March 3, 1850. <ref>Ronald G. Watt, “‘[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=66ca1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Had You Stood in the Presence of Peter’: A Letter from Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 1846],” Ensign, Feb. 1977, 78</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&bucket=AllChurchContent&query=oliver+cowdery Search for Olivery Cowdery on LDS.org]
*[http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/projects/cowdery.htm Oliver Cowdery Commemorative Events and Symposium], Mormon Historic Sites Foundation

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cowdery, Oliver}}
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Reconstruction

2009-11-10T19:07:29Z

JFPerry: typo corrections

'''Reconstruction''' was the attempt from 1863 to 1877 in American history to resolve the issues of the [[American Civil War]], when both the Confederacy and slavery were destroyed and the Constitution was expanded by three amendments that strengthened the rights of citizens. Reconstruction addressed the return of the Southern states that had seceded, the status of ex-Confederate leaders, and the Constitutional and legal status of the African-American Freedmen (newly freed ex-slaves). Violent controversy arose over how to accomplish those tasks, and by the mid 1870s Reconstruction had failed to equally integrate the Freedmen into the legal, political, economic and social system.

"Reconstruction" is also the common textbook name for the entire national history during 1865 to 1877.
[[File:Recon-map.jpg|thumb|410px|Radical reconstruction: Army districts replaced state government, 1867-68]]
Reconstruction came in three phases. '''Presidential Reconstruction 1863-66''' was controlled by Presidents [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Andrew Johnson]], with the goal of speedily reuniting the country. Their moderate programs were opposed by the [[Radical Republicans]], a political faction that gained power after the 1866 elections and began '''Radical Reconstruction, 1866-1873''' emphasizing civil rights and voting rights for the Freedmen. A Republican coalition of Freedmen, [[Carpetbagger]]s and [[Scalawag]]s controlled most of the southern states. In the so-called '''Redemption, 1873-77''', white supremacist Southerners (calling themselves "[[Redeemers]]") defeated the Republicans and took control of each southern state, marking the end of Reconstruction.

==Policy Issues==
There were conflicting theories of what the national government could and should do to restore the South to a normal status. The key constitutional provision was the national government must guarantee to every state a "republican form of government." Exactly what that meant was the issue. Radical Republican [[Charles Sumner]] argued that secession had destroyed statehood alone but the Constitution still extended its authority and its protection over individuals, as in the territories. [[Thaddeus Stevens]] and his followers viewed secession as having left the states in a status like newly conquered territory.

Congress rejected Johnson's argument that he had the war power to decide what to do, since the war was now over. Congress decided it had the primary authority to decide because the Constitution said the Congress had to guarantee each state a republican form of government; the issue became how the core political values of [[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]] should operate in the South.

President [[Abraham Lincoln]] was the leader of the moderate Republicans and wanted to speed up Reconstruction and reunite the nation as soon as possible. Lincoln formally began Reconstruction in late 1863 with his [[Ten percent plan]], which went into operation in several states but which Radicals opposed. Lincoln vetoed the Radical plan, the [[Wade-Davis Bill]] of 1864. The opposing faction of [[Radical Republicans]] were much more skeptical of Southern intentions and demanded far more stringent federal action. Congressman [[Thaddeus Stevens]] and Senator [[Charles Sumner]] led the Radical Republicans. After [[Abraham Lincoln assassination|Lincoln's assassination]], President Andrew Johnson switched from the Radical to the moderate camp. He too favored voting rights for the 170,000 black veterans.

Republican leaders agreed that slavery and the [[Slave Power]] had to be permanently destroyed, and that all forms of Confederate nationalism had to be suppressed. Moderates said this could be easily accomplished as soon as Confederate armies surrendered and the Southern states repealed secession and ratified the 13th Amendment (which abolished slavery); all of which happened by September 1865, when Johnson felt Reconstruction was finished.

By 1866, however, Johnson, with no party affiliation, broke with the moderate Republicans and aligned himself more with the Democrats who opposed equality and the Fourteenth Amendment. Radicals attacked the policies of Johnson, especially his veto of the Civil Rights Bill for the Freedmen.

The House elections of 1866 decisively changed the balance of power, giving the Radicals control of Congress and enough votes to overcome Johnson's vetoes and even to impeach him. Johnson was acquitted by one vote, but he remained almost powerless regarding Reconstruction policy. Radicals used the Army to take over the South and give the vote to black men, and they took the vote away from an estimated 10,000 or 15,000 white men who had been Confederate officials or senior officers. The Radical stage lasted for varying lengths in the different states, where a Republican coalition of Freedmen, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers took control and promoted modernization through railroads and public schools. They were charged with corruption by their opponents, the conservative–Democratic coalition, calling themselves "Redeemers" after 1870. Violence sponsored by the [[Ku Klux Klan]] was overcome by federal intervention.

By 1877, however, Redeemers regained control of every state, and President [[Rutherford Hayes]] withdrew federal troops, causing the collapse of the remaining three Republican state governments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were permanent legacies. Bitterness from the heated partisanship of the era lasted well into the 20th century.
==Further reading==
See [[Reconstruction historiography]] for a much longer guide and an explanation of how historians have tackled the topic.

* Donald, David H. et al., ''Civil War and Reconstruction'' (2001) textbook
* Du Bois, W.E.B. "Reconstruction and its Benefits," ''American Historical Review'', 15 (July, 1910), 781—99 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191007%2915%3A4%3C781%3ARAIB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T JSTOR]
* Donald, David Herbert. ''Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man'' (1970), Pulitzer prize winning biography
* Dunning, William Archibald. ''Reconstruction: Political & Economic, 1865-1877'' (1905). Blames Carpetbaggers for failure of Reconstruction. [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XgIOAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=Dunning,+William+Archibald.+%27%27Reconstruction:+Political+%26+&ots=hfgL3IVGbC&sig=hJEGx4hCEmMeJr0FqSVkvr9ECPg online edition]
* Fitzgerald, Michael W. ''Splendid Failure: Postwar Reconstruction in the American South.'' (2007. xiv, 234 pp. isbn 978-1-56663-734-3.)
* [[Walter Lynwood Fleming]] [http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelapdex.htm ''The Sequel of Appomattox, A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States''(1918)]. [[Dunning School]][http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_History/jhfranklin.htm].
* Foner, Eric and Mahoney, Olivia. ''America's Reconstruction: People and Politics After the Civil War.'' short well-illustrated survey from [[neoabolitionist]] perspective
* Foner, Eric. ''Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877'' (1988) Pulitzer-prize winning synthesis from [[neoabolitionist]] perspective
* Foner, Eric. ''Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction.'' 2005. 268 pp. popular version from [[neoabolitionist]] perspective
* Ford, Lacy K., ed. ''A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction.'' Blackwell, 2005. 518 pp.
* Franklin, John Hope. ''Reconstruction after the Civil War'' (1961), University of Chicago Press, 280 pages. Short survey by leading black scholar
* Jenkins, Wilbert L. ''Climbing up to Glory: A Short History of African Americans during the Civil War and Reconstruction.'' SR Books, 2002. 285 pp.
* Litwack, Leon. ''Been in the Storm So Long'' (1979). Pulitzer Prize; focus on the African Americans from [[neoabolitionist]] perspective
* Milton, George Fort. ''The Age of Hate: Andrew Johnson and the Radicals.'' (1930). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14804076 online edition] Based on [[Dunning School]]
* Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. ''A History of the United States since the Civil War''. Vol 1 and vol 2 (1917). Based on [[Dunning School]] [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=55407034 vol 1 online, 1865-68]
* Perman, Michael. ''Emancipation and Reconstruction'' (2003). 144 pp.
* Randall, J. G. ''The Civil War and Reconstruction'' (1953). Long the standard survey, with elaborate bibliography; updated by David Donald in 1961
* Rhodes, James G. ''History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896. Volume: 6.'' (1920). 1865-72; Highly detailed narrative by Pulitzer prize winner; argues was a political disaster because it violated the rights of white Southerners.
* Stampp, Kenneth M. ''The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877'' (1967); survey from [[neoabolitionist]] perspective
* Trefousse, Hans L. ''Historical Dictionary of Reconstruction'' Greenwood (1991), 250 entries
* Trefousse, Hans L. ''Andrew Johnson: A Biography'' (1989) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/andrew-johnson-a-biography-by-hans-l-trefousse.jsp online edition]
* Trefousse, Hans L. ''Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian'' (1997)
* Williams, T. Harry. "An Analysis of Some Reconstruction Attitudes" ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 12, No. 4. (Nov., 1946), pp. 469-486. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28194611%2912%3A4%3C469%3AAAOSRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N JSTOR]

===Primary sources===
* Fleming, Walter L. ''Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational, and Industrial'' 2 vol (1906). Uses broad collection of primary sources; vol 1 on national politics; vol 2 on states; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0OnNK8pM92WrjQK2ijCaciu&id=yukLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=%22Documentary+History+of+Reconstruction%22&sig=KbFxeYrtnbJAFZRBvK_rApDguQg#PPR11,M1 volume 1 online 493 pp ] and [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0lH-_oan672uKoftngo_tzc&id=beoLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=documentary+plantation&as_brr=1#PPR7,M1 vol 2 online 480 pp ]
* Lynch, John R. ''The Facts of Reconstruction.'' (1913)[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16158/16158-h/16158-h.htm Full text online]. Memoir by black congressmen from Mississippi during Reconstruction.
* McPherson, Edward, ed. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN04007498&id=kaG2Am68tuAC&pg=PP3&dq=mcpherson+period+of+reconstruction '' The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction'' (1875)], large collection of speeches and primary documents, 1865-1870, complete text online.
* Stalcup, Brenda. ed. ''Reconstruction: Opposing Viewpoints'' (Greenhaven Press: 1995). Primary documents from opposing viewpoints.
==See also==
* [[Reconstruction historiography]]

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Reconstruction]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]

Christopher Columbus

2009-11-07T21:12:31Z

JFPerry: /* Death */ typo correction (prove -> proved)

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>

He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the natives to be friendly and they found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Columbus saw this as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]
==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. They gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died a prosperous man in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. It is also a myth that Columbus proved that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]

Christopher Columbus

2009-11-07T21:10:52Z

JFPerry: /* The Memory of Columbus */ typo correction (bewsides ->besides)

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>

He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the natives to be friendly and they found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Columbus saw this as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]
==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. They gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died a prosperous man in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. It is also a myth that Columbus prove that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]

The Call of the Wild

2009-08-16T15:00:13Z

JFPerry: add "default sort"

'''The Call of the Wild''' is a 1903 [[novel]] by [[Jack London]] which depicts the struggles of Buck, formerly a domestic [[dog]], to adapt to the harsh, unforgiving environment and life of a sled dog in [[Alaska]]. The story-line is employed as a mechanism for examining the interplay between nature and nurture as Buck's primitive, instinctual nature reasserts itself and gradually comes to the fore.

The book proved extremely popular at the time and, together with the companion work ''[[White Fang]]'', issued a few years later, helped cement author Jack London's reputation as a master adventure storyteller. The work has retained its popularity over the years and is considered among the best works of 20th century American fiction [[literature]]. The deeper meaning of the story as a classic quest tale belies its reputation in some quarters as a mere adventure tale for adolescent boys.

In writing the book, the author drew upon his own experiences during his quest for [[gold]] in Alaska at the time of the [[gold rush of 1897-98]].

==Plot summary==

Buck is a big, strong dog living comfortably, but vigorously, in a loving and carefree domestic situation in the mild climate of [[California]]. One day, he is taken by his owner's hired gardener and sold to pay off a gambling debt. He is then turned over to a dog trainer who beats the angry Buck into submission, after which he is taken by [[train]] northwards to await deployment to a dog team pulling sleds during the Alaska gold rush of 1897-98.

Buck is acquired by a pair of French-Canadian mail couriers who are assembling a dog team for a run to [[Dawson]]. Once in the traces, Buck undergoes a period of mental and physical adjustment to his radically changed environment. Buck has been suddenly and cruelly ripped out of the only home he has ever known, in a mild environment characterized by love and friendship, and delivered to a harsh, hostile, world where the only law is that of the "club and fang". He is aided in this transition by the first stirrings of the primitive [[instinct]]s of his distant ancestors which are still coursing in his blood.

During the exhausting and dangerous journey to Dawson, tension develops between Buck and the bullying and treacherous lead dog Spitz, who sees Buck as a potential rival. On several occassions, they squabble and it becomes evident that they are headed for an all-out showdown. Meanwhile, the ancient primeval yearnings continue to well up within Buck while, simultaneously, the niceties of his former civilised life and ethics fade into memory. Then one day, on the return trip from Dawson, the final showdown between Buck and Spitz takes place, with Buck emerging victorious.

Upon returning to camp, Buck refuses to take a place in the traces until he is given the lead posiiton, which he feels he has won by right of combat. Once this is done, the team is whipped into shape, and led by Buck, they complete the return run from Dawson in record time. Parting company with their drivers, the team turns around and, with a new driver, makes another round trip to Dawson and back.

The team arrives at their destination completely worn out and badly in need of rest. Within a few days, they are sold once again. The new owners are greenhorns, inexperienced in the ways of either the Northlands or the dogs. They leave immediately, without allotting to the dogs sufficient time for recovery and, as a result, make poor time, run short of rations and drive the dogs into a deplorable state, losing most of the team on the way. Halfway through their journey, they arrive at John Thornton's wilderness camp and are advised not to proceed due to poor [[ice]] conditions. They decide to leave anyway, and when Buck refuses to take his place in the traces, he is savagely beaten to the very point of death until he is rescued by Thornton. The rest of the team is whipped into proceeding, but the ice gives way and all - the remaining dogs, the sled, and the drivers - are lost.

Buck's wounds heal and he recovers his strength. He develops a deep affection for Thornton, the man who saved him. Still, the call of the wild persists and gains in intensity with his feelings for Thornton being the only thing which continue to tie him to the civilized life. Later, on a trip with Thornton's partners carrying a load of logs to Dawson, Buck saves Thornton's life after the latter falls into the river. Once in Dawson, Buck wins a sled-pulling bet and a considerable sum of money for Thornton.

With the winnings from the bet, Thornton and his partners go in search of a fabled lost mine. Buck, feelling the pull of the wild and primitive as never before, begins to spend time and even sleep away from camp, sometimes for days at a time. One day, upon returning to camp, Buck finds the camp occupied by Yeehat indians who have despoiled the camp and killed all the occupants. Buck, in a wild rage, attacks them and drives them off. But now all ties holding Buck to the settled life are broken and and he reurns to the forest, taking up the leadership of a pack of [[wolf|timber wolves]]. Stories about him abound, and he has finally become transformed into the legendary "Ghost Dog of the North".

{{DEFAULTSORT:Call of the Wild, The}}
[[Category:Novels]]

The Call of the Wild

2009-08-16T14:59:12Z

JFPerry: add category

User talk:RJJensen

2009-08-16T14:57:57Z

JFPerry: /* cross-posting from Citizendium */ new section

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

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

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]

::::: Happy New Year!

:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==US Civil War==

Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Third Party v Third Party System ==

Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Blago ==

I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).

== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==

Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==

Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Category: Naval Battles ==

I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandalism patrol==

RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

==Criminals and folk heroes==

What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Cartoon ==

That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?

From the copyright office's website:

<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>

I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.

Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==

Presented for your inspection and consideration.....

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Gibbs ==

Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==

[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)

==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==

Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Stimulus bill==

Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== World History Lectures ==

I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks==
I see you've been doing some really good work this past week, and thanks! We need more editing like that. Great job. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::HEY--thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

==Attribution==
Please endeavor to give proper attribution for the articles you are taking from Citizendium. A copy of our license is available on the front page of the site. Thank you. [[User:Citizendium|Citizendium]] 15:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

*'''He does, and was the original author of the items he has placed here.''' I was unaware, "Citizendium", you are a German encyclopedia, being that is where your ISP is located. Another fraud/troll bites the dust. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

==Historian?==

Are you really Richard Jensen? I read your midwest book when I was younger (If indeed you are) [[User:JamesFerguson|JamesFerguson]] 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
::yes. I wrote it when I was 24 years old. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Democrats and casual sex==

Jensen, I noticed that you deleted [[Democrats and casual sex|this article]], citing "inappropriate content". While I certainly find the actions of the Democrats to be inappropriate, I don't find the content of the article to be inappropriate. It was written without going into the lewd details of the online solicitations, but with enough evidence to incriminate the Democrats. Hard data doesn't lie: the Democratic convention had that spike in postings, while the RNC, which happened ''after'' and thus was under more scrutiny, did not have the spike in postings. It's a black and white testament to who actually lives family values, and therefore who has the family values in mind. Democrats may talk all they want about upholding morals, but their actions, ''especially'' those done in secret, tell a completely different story, one replete with [[duplicity]].

Furthermore, I'd argue precedent: this content has been listed in the articles on the [[2008 Democratic National Convention]] for some time. When I created the standalone article, I was pleasantly surprised to find the content had already been dutifully reported on CP. If you would, could you please restore the article? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::tens of thousands of people attend major conventions, so they all generate huge amounts of business. Not encyclopedic. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree with Jensen. Pot/Kettle? Given the sex scandals that have and continue to hit both parties, singling out one of them is not the best road to go down..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:::tk is ok. We have lots of middle school kids and tehy shouldn't be wasting their time on this stuff when they can read about Henry VIII. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Kingdom of the Netherlands ==

Could you move [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] to the [[Netherlands]]? (See [[Talk:The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_is_not_the_Netherlands.21|here]]) Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::ok--good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks again! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Arguing only.... ==

This: [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Nine] is exactly what I was talking about. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pilgrim's Progress ==

Hi - sorry to bother. When you edited [[Pilgrim's Progress]] earlier, did the images load ok? For some reason I am only seeing an empty frame, yet the code looks correct and I am about to pull my hair out figuring out what is wrong! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::the images did not load --probably because they are too big. I can resize them now if you want. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I would really appreciate that! Thank you so much. (I know it is a physical impossibility, but it seems I too have blonde moments *grin*) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:17, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::::yes it works! (I made the map smaller) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thank you again! That is one I owe you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fake Quotes ==
I will no longer use BrainyQuote.com, publishers of fake quotes. Thanks for the correction.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::good idea. it's weird how so many quotes get faked these days. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Internet Vandals ==

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--yes they do get under my skin :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh, BTW:
<blockquote>
Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen more sharply than realized, despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data." [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us]
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the tip. I'll keep updating the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Great effort ==

Great effort cleaning up the vandalism this morning! You might observe that vandalism is almost perfectly correlated with products of the political left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. they are nettlesome gnats. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:54, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state it was historically a derogatory term, but that since the late 1950's it has been co-opted by the targets of the term, and in modern usage it isn't necessarily viewed as a negative? Think Jeff Foxworthy, etc. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::good point! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:18, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Richard! I remember that cartoon, too! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:45, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::::It's one of my favorites. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:51, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Socialism]] ==

RJ, when you get a moment, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Socialism#Grammatical_Edit_and_Rebuttal this?] The editor wants to add what he feels is a needed rebuttal to what he feels is something too pro-socialist...I don't see what he's getting at, but do want to accommodate him if possible. Since most of the work there is now yours, I am deferring to your judgment. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
::OK I worked on it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:09, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lenin ==

Hey RJJensen, so, you're ''much'' better at history than I am, but I do feel compelled to ask about your moving of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Lenin (I put the full reasons on the talk page) - simply because I feel precedent would have us use his full name, but the reason I'm posting here is just to clarify that I in no way mean to question you and the request is in no way meant as an insult - I have a lot of respect for you and I just want to make sure there won't be a misunderstanding. Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:20, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the note--no offense taken and i'm glad you asked disguise his identity and so it should not be treated like ordinary names. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Understood - thanks very much! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:47, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Lol, sorry about the misspelled name! I can't believe I did that ... in all seriousness though it really is awesome to work with you - so if you ever need a template or anything done, lemme know.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks--I'm a klutz at progamming and appreciate the help. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Trying to determine if a quote is a fake. I tried Google, it comes up everywhere with blogs only. I tried Google books, about 5 come up. I would think credible historical sites would list if true. Can you confirm Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::I searched around and it appears to be a fake. All genuine Jefferson quotes are well represented in books.google.com [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== "the best"? ==

What constitutes the best prose writer? I would imagine that it is impossible to say in a way that does not involve a whole lot of personal opinion, which as you know is not the kind of objective fact you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. From what I gather you yourself are not an Italian literature scholar, and even if you can read Italian extremely well and have read a good deal of Italian prose I really don't think you can say "he is the best", simply because, as I just said, its subjective. thanks --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 20:48, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::objective fact---hmmm. what sort of facts are those? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I suspect liberal "facts", RJ. What is indisputeable is he wasn't a very good sockmaster! Brendanw, EmersonW, MrEmerson and several accounts that look like IP's were all his. Sorry to ruin your fun with this guy...I didn't see you had engaged him until after I had begun shutting him down. Next time I will let you have fun with them! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::::yeah--my goal is to drive them away redfaced and yours is to catch them red-handed (red moused?) :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

ROFL! Whatever happened to the apparently archaic practice of playing outside? Worries me these little kids no longer play outside.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::on Wikipedia I once was so annoyed by vandals that I complained to the school's principal in New Jersey. since they weren't harrassing HIM, he ignored my complaint. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:46, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sherry Lansing, once in the motion picture business, has lived her business life by one rule: she never leaves the office without returning, or attempting to return ALL calls. No matter that she doesn't know the person, or they end up being someone complaining about a movie they saw. Once, at a charity deal, I asked her why. She winked and said several of those calls had made her millions in good ideas or a writer looking for someone to buy their script. She just hated the thought of being rude and not responding, saying her mother raised her better than that. Sounds like that principal is reaping what he sows. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

==Revert==
Please revert User:ForTheWin's edits (I would myself, but I can't revert past one edit :(

==Thanks==
Thanks for the nice comments on my page! I am very excited for Princeton in the fall. I'll also definitely look up Liz Jensen - aerospace engineering, wow, that's great! I am considering engineering also, with mechanical/aerospace engineering near the top of my list. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:56, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::you might have Liz as your TA -- she loves to teach. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

== Upload ==

Can you give me upload picture rights?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  00:42, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
::I don't have the power; ask [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]].--[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:47, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Just out of curiosity, would you give it to me if you could?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  01:01, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Austria ==

Hello RJJensen. Just wanted to let you know that you mistakenly moved the picture of Stephansdom in Passau over to the page on Austria. Living in Austria myself, I can attest that Passau is indeed in Germany, and Vienna's Stephansdom looks nothing like this picture! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:33, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for that. my mistake. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

== Excuse me, sir! ==

Sir, you seem to be an in-charge-type around here. This being so, could you inform me how to upload images, as I can't find the button that I am so used to using on other wikis.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:17, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Furthermore... ==

What's more, the page D.C.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=D.C&redirect=no] is currently locked, and yet it's only a double-redirect. Could you, as an admin, fix this? Thank you.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

And while we're on the topic, [[President Harry S. Truman]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=President_Harry_S._Truman&redirect=no] has the same problem. Poor Harry.
Thanks again.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:: technical pages (like the Truman and DC examples) should not be altered. To request a picture upload goto [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:31, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the response! While we're on the topic, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_glitter] is completely devoid of content. Could you unlock it or, preferably, destroy it?--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:35, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I could partially fix a few. However, the Truman article is problematic inasmuch as it should be titled "Harry S. Truman" not "Harry Truman". Lots of links, however, so I will work on changing them and moving the main article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:38, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==Silly stuff==

Could you check Gianni's contribs? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Gianni] I think a lot of it is just random silliness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I was just looking at those. agreed. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:10, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Plymouth Brethren ==

This article wasn´t accepted by liberal wikipedia, why you refuse it in Conservapedia, please give reasons.

== Conservapedia:Featured articles ==

Any proposal for new articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:45, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::how about [[Atlanta]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:58, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::: Done, now you may vote. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:32, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

==Vandalism==

Please revert my bad joke (see [[Counter Reformation]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, so you '''are''' awake ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::well I make too many typos when I write in my sleep, so I have a stiff cup of coffee right now. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:04, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==new article==
Maybe you can add some historical background to my new article [[Melting pot]]. If so, thanks! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:24, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
::yes...it's a favorite topic of mine. Thanks for getting it started! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:12, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

== Labour Pary ==

*Why do you keep vandalizing my correction on the "Labour Party" article. Stop it! The Labour Party IS a socialist party. The party officially describes itself as "democratic socialist." And by the way, Tony Blair has never officially renounced socialism. American conservatives need to get over this ridiculous idea that just because Blair supported the War on Terror that means he is a conservative. He's not! --- [[User:AmerICan|AmerICan]] 19:00, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
::take it to the talk page first or you will get banned for vandalism. Thanks. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:01, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your helpful corrections to my new pages for the Obama czars! I'm new here, and looks like I went a bit overboard with the speculation into non-neutrality -- my summaries were written more as an anti-wikipedia than as truly neutral articles. I'll try to be more neutral in the future!
::and thank you for taking the initiative! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:44, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

==Lusitania==
Whay are you insistant on hiding any information on the cargo of that ship, and why are you removing historical information? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::CP should condemn terrorism against helpless civilians, as all the world did at the time. The Germmans are the ones who tried to justify their actions, but they sank an unarmed undefended passenger ship deliberately in order to terrify the British. I added the German captain's own war diary account, which gives the German perspective. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:09, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I agree, and I would have posted the sub's war diary as well if and when I found it, but the fact remains that you have removed needed material from the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::well what historical material do you think should be included? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:22, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::The past and present allegations pertaining to its munitions cargo and the current archaeological findings as reported in ''Archaeology'' Magazine and others; pertinent information regarding its passengers, sailing date, and final moments off Ireland; the German warnings in the New York Times, its declaration of the war zone around the British Isles, and its belief that ''Lusitania'' was carrying war cargo; current condition of the ship, the attempted destruction of the wreck by the British Government in the 1950's, and the case involving the owners of the wreck vs. the Irish Government...in short, just about everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::most of the info is in there. There should be a separate section on archaeology (which is ongoing--Wiki has some of the details). The "munitions" bit is a red herring that Germans used to justify killing innocent Americans. We need to keep an American perspective, not that of the discredited Kaiser's government that used terrorism and war crimes routinely. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Read what I posted here [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Lusitania_warnings.png][http://www.conservapedia.com/File:WashingtonpostMay8_1915.jpg]; period newspaper reports from the Washington Post which suggest that ''Lusitania's'' captain scoffed at the danger from Germany. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::yes the ship shouild have been zig-zagging as ordered. not a good reason to kill americans. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
So, would a discussion of illegal arms shipments by the Wilson administration in contrast to the [[Iran contra affair]] be innappropriate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::No, not true and not appropriate. and please if you insist on showing bias at least make it a pro-American bias, not anti-American. Better yet is no bias using the best scholarship. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:38, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Is being critical of Iran contra anti-American bias? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:41, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::left wing biases are unwelcome here.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:59, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Not necessarily so, solong as they are cited as such. Under those circumstances, they provide balance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

==Let's cut to the chase==
Here's the biggest problem you have to deal with: the Founder of the Roosevelt Presidential Library, [[Trude Lash]], was a [[Stalinist]] [[KGB]] operative. How do you propose we deal with this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::I was at the fdr Library last week and talked to the archivist personally. What's the problem? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm still working on the Trude Lash material, you'll have to give me at least a few days. Incidentally, did you ever see this one at Hyde Park:
::::5. Joseph A. Michela, Military Attache Moscow Report 1903, "N.K.V.D. of the U.S.S.R.," 14 April 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Harry Hopkins Papers, "MID Reports--USSR--Volume V," box 190.
:::all six pages [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/part1.htm available here] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:28, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Excerpted p.5:
:''Any governmental organization that has a crying need for labor simply calls upobn the N.K.V.D to supply it. If the amount of labor is insufficient to supply the need, it is relatively an easy matter to institute a reign of terror on any pretext and fill up the labor colonies to meet requirements. There is little doubt that during the purges of the past, one eye was kept on the labor needs of government projects...."'' [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/5d.gif]
That's only a random selection, there's much more. And this is dated six months before Pearl Harbor. Many Americans had to wait till the 1970s and Solzhenitsyn's book to hear of this. All our reliable sources told us up til then was Harry and Uncle Joe got on like a "house of fire." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::I did not see that particular document but I did see others like it. FDR founded the FDR Library, not Trude Lash. The FDR Library received the FDR papers only after FDR died--there were no secret documents there during the war years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::FDR founded the library? Where the papers his personal property when he did so? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::The archivist told me that FDR raised $400,000 in 1940 to build the library on his property at Hyde park. He deeded it to the federal government. Since his death the government (National Archives) has owned and operated it; they moved his papers there in the late 1940s. Trude Lash her Joseph Lash husband years later set up a separate private FDR institute that runs academic programs. I'm not sure about Trude's politics but her husband Joseph Lash was the leading ANTI-Communist in student affairs in 1939 when he met Eleanor and they became close friends. Eleanor strongly encouraged Joe's marriage to Trude in 1944. Joe Lash and ER were key leaders of the anti-communist movement in the US in the late 1940s.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::That structure, the government holding the deed to the FBI Library would then be different from other Presidential libraries under current law. So this is what you've been told.
:::::Two points. Let's clarify, (a) [[Joseph Lash]] was an anti-communist? even Wikipedia cites Joseph Lash heading a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_front#Alleged_CPUSA_front_organizations.2C_circa_1944 Communist front organization]] on the [[Attorney General]]'s list in 1944 (Attorney General Francis Biddle, that is. M.Stanton Evens says the FDR administration established this list in 1941).
:::::(b) were the FDR papers, moved to his personal residence, considered FDR's personal property? This obviously relates to Nixon taking a tax deduction for the donation of his vice-presidential papers, seeing that by precedent, FDR & Lyndon Johnson's papers were regarded as thier personal property. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::Lash had been a fellow traveler in the 1930s, broke with the Communists in 1939, and became the #1 anti-communist student leader. (he resigned from the Am. Youth Congress in 1940 when the reds took it over.) He later was a founder of the ADA, the leading anti-communist group in the late 1940s. FDR did not consider the presidential papers to be his personal property, but he did have many non-presidential papers. (For example, his widow sold off his stamp collection.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Really? our sources say [[American_Youth_Congress#Dies_investigation| he defected from the Socialist Party]] to the Comintern in 1937 (the source being none other than himself <s>Trude Lash</s>). And that still doesn't explain how he ends up on the wartime [[Attorney General's list]] of [[subversive]] organizations. If memory serves me correct, there were only a dozen or so subversive organizations when the list began under FDR in 1941, of which Joe Lash's [[American Youth Congress]] is one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::ER Encylopedia says: ''"the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Germany in August 1939. Led by Joseph Lash, a founder and executive secretary of the ASU, a number of members condemned the Soviet action. Although communists were a minority of the ASU, by this time they held a majority of the leadership positions and exerted powerful control over the organization’s national board. Communist ASU officers condemned Lash for his views, organized a successful campaign to vote him out of office, and adopted a communist, anti–New Deal, isolationist position."'' (p 15) It notes that most members then quit the ASU and many joined the new anti-communist International Student Service (ISS) which Lash headed. Lash was not on the Attorney General's list because it only listed organizations--it named groups that Lash had quit or been expelled from years before. SEE [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763168,00.html TIME story Jan 8 1940] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:36, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::So the time has come to do a [[Joe Lash]] bio; this has been on my to-do list for many years.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::yes, he's interesting. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

==-SDA page==

The SDA page is now well written and informative, (good writer) and though i think the controversies as well as the changes from the 1950's interaction are important (the apologetics index link helped), i am sorry you got some of the overflow of my grief from the original condition.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:49, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--I'm glad that we're agreed [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Random Question ==
Are you the same R. J. Jensen that studied the fallacy of the NINA signs!?!? If you are I admire your work!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:57, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--that's me. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Wow! I was absolutely fascinated by that article! My son showed the article to his liberal history teacher who was preaching the victimization of the Irish. Your work brought him the truth and converted him! He now teaches the fallacy of the NINA signs!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::delighted to hear that. I still get ^%%$^ everry March 17 from poor victims. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:33, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Haha! Oh the Irish! Always the "victims" of something!

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:47, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== on vacation ==

I've been on the road the last few weeks with limited time and limited access to internet. I'll be back in early August.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:41, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

: I am also out of town; hope you could have some time to give your opinion over future featured articles. Good luck and nice vacations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:44, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== Obamunism ==

RJ, I certainly agree with you that Bush's bailouts were bad for the American economy. However, to add Bush in a sentence I was just working on in the article made the sentence far too long and complicated so I removed the material about Bush being involved in corporate bailouts. I also think that since the article is about Obamamunism, the article should first focus on Obama. With that being said, I certainly would not object to any material added to the article about Bush's corporate bailouts, but I think it should be done later in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:08, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
::ok [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:11, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== quick note bush vs. Obama bailouts ==

It is true that Bush initiated the corporate bailout process. However, I do not know if it could be said that Bush did far more bailing out in terms of magnitude of dollars spent, so I abridged your material. However, if you can show that the magnitude of Bush bailout expenditures exceeded Obama's, I certainly would not want to obscure or hide this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== libertarian vs. conservative republicans ==

Conservative republicans and libertarians were opposed to bush bailouts, but I know they two camps differ on social issues like abortion so i altered the sentence to just mention the phrase advocates of free market capitalism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:agreed.

::I added the $ details. TARP is the #1 bailout program--demanded by Bush and signed by him in Oct 2008--at $700 billion. That money covers the banks and GM bailouts, for example. In addition Bush gave guarantees for hundreds of billions of toxic assets for AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (as well as some banks like Wachovia and Washington Mutual)--how much of the guarantee $$$$ actually will be spent is a big unknown as of today. Some specific details are at [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:34, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== request ==

RJJensen,

I know that the libertarians have been very active on the economic freedom front in the USA as far as educating the public. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente (although he does not call himself a libertarian, I believe he is as far as his outlook), and the Ludwig von Mises Institute come to mind.

I am guessing you are a libertarian and I think August could be an important month as far as future economic freedom in the USA as Obama does not want to be defeated on the health care issue which will cause him to lose political momentum among other things.

Would you be interested in creating these articles:

[[Obama admistration deficit spending]]

[[Obama administration corporate bailouts]]

[[Obama administration fiscal policy]]

[[Obama admistration monetary policy]]

Please let me know if you are interested as your assistance would be appreciated.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Can you delete==

On the wanted pages i noticed ‎49 links to a "Zachary Robeson", and like you, i can find no such person, but this name is yet listed in the Famous Explorers section of apparently 49 pages. Can you somehow do a mass delete of this? I surmise it was designed with ill intent. Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:24, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::I can't find any link to him. ?? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:37, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I think he's right: [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Zachary_Robeson]]. It looks like the link is always in the Famous Explorers box at the bottom, so I'm guessing it only needs to be changed once, I just don't know where to do it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::::OK i deleted it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks RJ and Daniel! It was yet another hidden bit of vandalism/lies inserted by blocked user BrianCo when he created the template originally. There have been several of the same removed since I blocked him, serving as vindication for me of just what and who he was; BrianCo is a proved liar and troll. Any previous edits by this discredited user from a vandal site, should be given a thorough going over whenever you come across them. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, Zachary Robeson was a parody article created by the blocked user Czolgolz. I reported it some time ago and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=RJJensen&page=&year=&month=-1 deleted] by RJJensen. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 15:34, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:*'''''Actually, OscarJ,''''' the template, the navigation template, was made by the liar BrianCo, who kept that article alive for months. Upon Daniel posting here, Dr. Jensen also removed the false article created by Czolgolz, a member of the very same vandal site as BrianCo, from the navigation template. But it was indeed BrianCo who added that false article to the template. Please refrain from trying to present confirmed vandals and liars like BrianCo in a positive light here. Disinformation isn't tolerated. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:20, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::Good work. But now even the White house is looking for reports on anything fishy.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:01, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Persons in the Bible==
Hi again. I created a page for Hoshea (high priest), as it was listed in the [[Special:WantedPages]], but i think it really should be Joshua the high priest, (Zec. 3:1) which the page i made is about, as i find no list that positively ID's Hoshea as a high priest, or renders Yehoshua by that name (the two are different in Hebrew), though i could be wrong. Also wanted was a page on Jehoirarib, which i made, but which i think is a misspelling of Jehoiarib (one 'r'), which again is who the page is about. I think all the calls for these two wanted pages are due to their being part of a template. Thanks and praise God. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:05, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::OK I Can fix that. exactly what should I do???

:::I would change the Hoshea to Joshua the high priest, and Jehoirarib to Jehoiarib in the template used for [[High_Priest]]. Yet that page is really about the [[High priest]], which itself is a non-existent, wanted page, and so maybe the latter title should take the place of the former. You might see the competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel. In addition, i cannot find any reference to a Joran at all, and that is listed on that template. Perhaps you can find out who made that. The rest look ok for now.

:::Also (if that is not confusing enough), among other issues which pertain to Biblical topics, fornication is a requested page(9 pages red link to it), as it was deleted due to vandalism. I recently incorporated the Biblical definition into the [[sex]] article, so either that could serve as a redirect or i could create a page with that in it, but which should afterward be protected. Maybe you could do one on [[Vice President]] ‎(12 links) some time. Thanks.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:35, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

:::More research shows that Jotham is most doubtful as being a high priest. Not as the youngest son of Gideon, nor as the son of King Uzziah (who intruded into the priests office) WP does have Jotham in its list of high priests, supposing he was the son of Azariah, who was a high priest (son of Zadok), but in this case his father was actually Uzziah, who was sometimes referred to as Azariah (Jerushah) as the name means the same. The last reference is to a descendant of Judah, son of Jahdai. 1Ch_2:47). "of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14)

:::I have tracked down the apparent source of these names, via a reference in the page to Axiomar by JY23: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/highpriests.wps.htm No source is provided for this extensive list, and i will email him for more info. Best hold off on any changes till further notice. Sorry for the confusion.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:49, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
::::oK --it's too uncertain now to make changes so I will wait till you're satisfied. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:32, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Gentlemen, I think you have the wrong Hoshea. The Hoshea that I was planning to discuss was the immediate successor to Azariah III; he served under [[Manasseh King of Judah]]. The other Joshua served alongside governor Zerubbabel during the reign of the Persian king Darius I.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::There are three by that name or (Oshea), but the problem is i could not find any that were verifiably a high priest, and the template it listed him as such, along with Jotham. I did get a brief email back (8-10) from the author of the page where this list evidently came from, but all he said was, "you ask the source for the genealogies of the high-priests, well, it was contained in the abbreviated version of "Joshua" [aka Jesus; Yahweh] - the title is in two volumes", and my request for more precise info has been ignored so far. Would have responded sooner but CP editing was locked for some time, as is too often the case.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:04, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Scottsboro boys==
Do you have anything on the [[Scottsboro boys]] or alternatively [[Scottsboro case]]; this appears to be an important articlew we'll need. I found an img. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:11, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::it was moderately important to the left in the 1930s. I'll draft a short article--thanks for the tip.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:17, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::The Scottsboro case is what motivated many prominent African-Americans of the era to join up with the CPUSA, as the CPUSA entry suggests; and of course we may need to comment on [[FDR]]'s refusal to back an anti-lynching law. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== cross-posting from Citizendium ==

Hello RJ!

I am currently in the process of writing articles for Citizendium on some of the great works of literature. I will be concentrating on those works which are most typically part of a high school reading or curriculum program. Both CZ and CP, it seems to me, are in serious need of a much greater breadth and/or depth of information on such literature than they presently possess.

Unless there is some problem with it, I would propose to cross-post my work yo both CZ and CP.

A current sample is [[The Call of the Wild]], just posted here a few minutes ago. I am currently working on ''The Time Machine'', have an article on ''The New Atlantis'' (by Francis Bacon). In the works is ''Little Women'' and many others. The articles will likely consist solely of brief intros followed by plot summaries. Some analysis or commentary would still need to be added, but the plot summary is a start.

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 10:57, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:The Call of the Wild

2009-08-16T14:50:36Z

JFPerry: source of article

==Source of article==

The article, as posted here, was written entirely by myself, originally for Citizendium. In posting it here now, I make it available to Conservapedia under the license terms of this site as well as those of Citizendium.

The present article consists only of a brief intro followed by a plot summary. It is thus incomplete, still needing a section of commentary or analysis. That I leave to others.

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 10:50, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

The Call of the Wild

2009-08-16T14:47:58Z

JFPerry: import article, written entirely by self, from Citizendium - se talk page

User talk:Learn together

2007-12-23T16:39:16Z

JFPerry: Philosophy categories

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

[[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive]]

==Contest==
How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our [[Conservapedia:Team Airborne|team page]]. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
== Rocker1973 ==

Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Larry_Craig&diff=299153&oldid=289755 . http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=299171&oldid=299152 shows how it works. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Beat me by 30 seconds! But I did block the IP range of all his proxies. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Better get a warranty if I do any paving! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest Points==
Great job raking up points yesterday!! <s>I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess).</s> Keep up the good work!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've created a page ([[User:Learn together/Contest2]]) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Urgent Matter... ==

Please contact me if you are around.... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sanford Ransdell Article ==

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Alchohol]] ==

It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Counting Contest Points==
If you could total your [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Learn_together/Contest2 contest points] for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Team_Airborne#Point_System here's] a link to the points guide)

:Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Points==
What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that [[Justice Joseph Story]] is after 12:00.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bush National Guard==

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the '''BIG LIE'''. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was <s>fired</s> allowed early retirement. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== My friend ==

Where are you? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest==
Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the [[Contest3|newest contest]]. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.

:Again, thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:: Nice to have you IN. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:::I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

::::Ready? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:::::Where is the list of your points? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::::::I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest2==
Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: <big>'''Supply Siders'''</big> --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Team page: [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders]] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Nice assist==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=A_Beautiful_Mind&curid=51139&diff=332837&oldid=332785&rcid=359995] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Dewey==

Why is Dewey blocked? [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

:He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== [[Panzerschreck]] ==

Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for cleaning up my edits ==

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example [[Philip_Pendleton_Barbour]]. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Jellyfish ==

Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*Invertebrates?

:I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==Points==
Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==KGB==
Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== block and delete needed ==

Just look at the recent changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:That should earn you a few points! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
::Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

== removal of copy righted material ==

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright.
hope you don't mind.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== Re-directs..... ==

Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==His Dark Materials==
Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited [[His Dark Materials]]. As you can see on my user page, [[User:JK899|JK899]], working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

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

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

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

Please use:

[[Featured articles]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

:Any proposal to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:: Good one! Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Coin collecting==

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Coins&rcid=378923 that category] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Response appreciated ==

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on changeblade@hotmail.co.uk Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. [[User:PleaseDeleteTempUser|PleaseDeleteTempUser]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads up ==

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

:No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Puellanivis==

I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy ''was'' out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Battle of Aegospotami/Delium? ==

Seeing as how [[Battle of Aegospotami]] was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:::You're already helping. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy categories ==

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. [[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Socrates

2007-12-23T03:28:14Z

JFPerry: question of the historical Socrates

[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Greek philosopher Socrates]]

'''Socrates''' was an ancient [[Greek]] philosopher, who lived between approximately 470 and 399 BC. He is best known for his method of argument, which poses questions that may expose logical errors underlying an opponent's argument, though he usually stated that his purpose was not to argue but to pursue the truth in alliance with his opponent. Socrates had served in the army in his youth, like all Greek men of his time. To modern readers he is most familiar as a character in many books by his disciple [[Plato]] or his contemporary [[Xenophon]]. If Socrates wrote any books himself they are lost. Eventually the courts of [[Athens]] found him guilty on charges of [[impiety]] and corrupting the youth, and sentenced him to drink [[hemlock]], a poison that took his life. Socrates had an opportunity to escape from prison, but declined to do so. <ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesbio.html</ref>

==The question of the historical Socrates==

The major problem in studying the thought of Socrates is that we have to rely on the writings and reports of others since Socrates himself wrote nothing.

[[Aristotle]] examines Socrates in his ''Metaphysics'', and [[Xenophon]] provides some additional information. But [[Plato]], who was Socrates' pupil, is our principal source of information. He (Plato) wrote numerous dialogues in which Socrates figures as the main speaker. The problem is separating out from these dialogues what is Socrates and what is Plato. And the chief question is the origin of Plato's "Forms Theory".

[[Frederick Copleston|Coopleston]], in his ''History of Philosophy'', takes the traditional view, largely accepting Aristotle who stated that Socrates did not "separate" the Forms. On this view, although the historical Socrates is presented, especially in the early dialogues, the fully developed theory of Plato's is an elaboration or development of Socrates' views and, especially in his later writings, Plato has used the character of Socrates to expound these views.

==Some famous Socrates quotes<ref>http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Socrates</ref>==
*The unexamined life is not worth living.
*Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.
*Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others.
*Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
*I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.

== See also ==

*[[Euthyphro]]
*[[Apology of Socrates]]
*[[Phaedo]]

== References ==
<references/>

Plato, Christopher Gill, ''The Symposium''. London: Penguin Books, 1999

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

Logical fallacy

2007-12-22T03:56:40Z

JFPerry: rm from category: Philosophy (already in sub-cat)

A '''Logical fallacy''' is any argument that suffers from a crippling logical flaw.

[[Logic]] is a demanding discipline. Conclusions either follow from certain previously stated premises, or they do not. This is not, however, to say that a conclusion is always false if the argument supporting it is invalid. For example:

#All undergraduates are human.
#All sophomores are human.
#Therefore, all sophomores are undergraduates.

One could as easily argue that all undergraduates are also sophomores, and the argument would be equally valid--or invalid in this case. However, one can establish the truth of the conclusion in another way--in this case, by [[definition]].

Logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as lying. A ''lie'' in logic is a premise that one offers while knowing that it is false. False premises can still be part of valid arguments, but conclusions having false premises to support them will be unreliable. A logical fallacy, then, is a flawed argumental structure, one that would lead to an unreliable conclusion even when its premises are true.

The following is a catalog of logical fallacies, with each one given a separate heading, to make them easier to cite in other articles.

==Catalog of Logical Fallacies==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|type}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|type}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing a ''logical fallacy''. Replace the word "type" with the name of the fallacy to link the warning label to the appropriate page.
</table>
===Argumentum ad hominem===

: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

([[Latin]]: "Argument directed toward the man"); An argument that attacks the character of one holding a contrary view, rather than attacking the view itself. ''Name-calling'' is a particularly crude form of this fallacy. ''Argumentum ad hominem'' is usually an attempt to accuse the other person of lying without saying so directly, or saying that his premises are somehow incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, or simply unreliable because they are self-serving. However, this is not good logic. If one suspects another of lying, then one should attempt to disprove the premises. One can raise a ''suspicion'' of deliberate falsehood on the part of another who has offered deliberate falsehood in the past. But the most that that can accomplish is to suggest that the other person's premises are unreliable and therefore require third-party corroboration.

===Overgeneralization===
An argument that attempts to apply a principle to circumstances beyond the scope of its original formulation or of any reliable demonstration. The application of [[Isaac Newton]]'s original theory of relative velocity (which is that it was simply additive) to speeds approaching that of light was an overgeneralization, as [[relativity]] would later show.

Overgeneralization also is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

([[Latin]]: "It does not follow"); An argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ([[Latin]] "Argument proceeding from clout"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

A classic example of argument from authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. This kind of argument also appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering.

===Proof by numbers===
This is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. "Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology. One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples, too many to mention here, of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] make two more.

===Proof by assertion===
An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]].

===Circular reasoning===
[[Circular reasoning]] is a form of proof-by-assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

===Argument from silence===
Argument from silence (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') is an assertion that a proposition is false merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to confirm it--or that a proposition is true merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to contradict it. "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question.

This is the opposite extreme from "manufacturing facts to support a theory," described below. The best aid to striking a balance that avoids these two opposing fallacies is [[Occam's razor]].

===Proving too much===
A form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Double standard===
The unequal use of a criterion, and its different application in different cases. This is actually a form of [[hypocrisy]].

===Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong===
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]''

The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion.

===Manufacturing facts from a theory===
: ''Main article: [[Manufacturing facts from a theory]]''

The assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. We deal here with the assumption of a fact ''not in evidence.'' In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact ''have failed'', the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and "someone hasn't tried hard enough" to find it. This is ''especially'' true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" ''could not possibly exist.''

This is yet another form of proof-by-assertion, and is the source of many controversies in modern [[astronomy]], some of them strikingly bitter.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to aver (that is, assert as true) or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "Consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method.

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Tautology===
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

===Contradiction===
A [[contradiction]] is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradition, some of the premises must be false.

Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above).

===Conflation===
[[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges."

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.)

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. A political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

== Related examples of improper reasoning ==
The following categories of poor reasoning are difficult to classify; some might not wish to classify them as logical fallacies ''per se'', but they are still, in most cases, indefensible:

===Infinite regression===
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''
An [[infinite regression]] results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

Is infinite regression ever defensible? If so, when? A [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|debate]] on this issue is now underway.

== Logical fallacy and the educational establishment ==
Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement. Various graduate-school admissions councils (among them the [http://www.mba.com/ Graduate Management Admissions Council] and the [http://www.lsac.org/ Law School Admissions Council]) have long recognized this fact and today test specifically for an appplicant's ability to [[Critical thinking|think critically]] and apply logic.

Thus the major admissions tests (Graduate Management Admission Test and Law School Admissions Test) feature questions on logical reasoning. A typical question would present an argument and ask either:

# What the argument assumes,
# What sort of evidence, if established, would significantly strengthen (or weaken) the argument, or
# Why the argument, as presented, is flawed.

Still other questions present arguments and then ask the test-taker what reasonable conclusions one might draw from them. Occasionally they present sets of two facts that might seem to contradict one another and ask the test-taker to explain how both facts can be true at once.

Many of the arguments presented (the ''stimuli'') and the wrong answer choices offered illustrate classic logical fallacies, often strikingly. Examples of ''argumentum ad hominem'' and the closely related fallacy of ''non sequitur'', to name two key errors, abound in these questions.

Yet for all this effort in trying to identify weaknesses in critical thinking, colleges tend to discourage critical thinking in other ways, mainly in that [[professor]]s often commit the very sort of logical fallacies that these tests, for example, challenge their test-takers with.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]

== See Also ==
"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong

2007-12-22T03:54:45Z

JFPerry: shift to cat: logical fallacies and rm from cat: philosophy

This is a special case of [[circular reasoning]] in which a protagonist tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different view. The logical structure of such an argument is:

# Fact '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''T'' as '''a'''.
# Interpretation '''a''' conflicts with theory ''U''.
# Therefore ''U'' is assumed to be wrong.

However:
# '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''U'' as '''b'''.
# Interpretation '''b''' is consistent with view ''U''.

In such a case, the holder of Theory ''U'' could as easily use that argument against the holder of Theory ''T''--and the proponent of Theory ''T'' would have no just cause to challenge that argument. (To do so would constitute [[special pleading]].)

In challenging a theory, one must not confuse the ''interpretation'' of a fact with the fact itself. Different theories infer different things from the same facts. Rejecting a theory out-of-hand merely because it infers things that your theory would not infer, is not logical and is not good [[science]]. The proper way to challenge an opposing theory is:

# To attempt to show that the theory is not self-consistent--i.e., that it leads to [[Logical fallacy#Contradiction|contradictions]], or failing that,
# To show that the opposing theory infers a given proposition, and then to show definitively that that proposition is contrary to fact. For example, the [[phlogiston]] theory of fire held that a flammable substance always contained another substance, called "phlogiston," that actually burned. [[Antoine Lavoisier]] demonstrated a combustion reaction in which the solid products clearly weighed ''more'' than the initial fuel, a thing that the phlogiston theory could not possibly explain.

== Reference ==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing an argument that essentially says, ''Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong''. The template links the warning label to this page.
</table>
* [http://creationwiki.org/Your_theory_does_not_work_under_my_theory,_so_your_theory_must_be_wrong Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong] by [[CreationWiki]]

== See Also ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Circular reasoning

2007-12-22T03:51:19Z

JFPerry: shift to category:logical fallacies

[[Circular reasoning]] is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]] in which one assumes the fact that one is trying to prove, and then "proves" the fact by a chain of inferences that lead back to the original assertion. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.''

== An analysis ==
The simplest argument is a single inference, as per the Law of Detachment:

*If P, then Q.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.

The Law of the Syllogism uses Detachment to establish an ''intermediate'' conclusion between the original premise and the eventual conclusion. Thus:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*Therefore, if P, then R.
*P.
*Therefore, Q and R.

''Contraposition'' uses Detachment in reverse to show that a thing is ''not'' true:

*If P, then Q.
*Not Q.
*Therefore, not P.

All these proofs start with a proposition already verified or denied.

This is the classic structure of circular reasoning, that is an abuse of the Law of the Syllogism:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*If R, then P.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.
*Therefore, R.
*Therefore, P.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument, because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"--while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt.

== Reference ==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|circular reasoning}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|circular reasoning}}</nowiki> template to insert this warning on a page containing an example of ''[[circular reasoning]]''. The warning label will then link back to this page.
</table>

* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Argumentum ad populum

2007-12-22T03:50:26Z

JFPerry: shift to category:logical fallacies

'''Argumentum ad populum''' (''appeal to the people'') is a [[logical fallacy]] that concludes that a position is true because many or all people believe it. i.e: "If many believe so, it is so." Other names for this are appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority,
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Ad hominem

2007-12-22T03:49:22Z

JFPerry: shift to category "logical fallacies"

'''''Ad hominem''''' means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying. This Latin phrase describes one of the oldest known [[logical fallacies]].

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an appeal to emotion rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the kettle black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

== Ad Hominem Not Always Fallacious ==
The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==

American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]
* [[Special pleading]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Kantianism

2007-12-21T16:45:26Z

JFPerry: add to category: philosophical systems

Kantianism is a [[rationalism|rationalistic]] [[deontology]] first created by the philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]]. It is based upon the idea known as the [[Categorical Imperative]], which states that one should not act in accordance with a maxim unless one would be willing for it to also be a universal law.

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]
{{expand}}

Category talk:Philosophical Systems

2007-12-21T16:44:04Z

JFPerry: comment on category inclusion criteria

==Category description==

Admittedly, there is a grey area between ''philosophical systems'', on the one hand, and ''philosophical concepts'' on the other. ''Monism'' is a concept. ''Platonism'' a system. But what about ''humanism''?

To be a ''system'', the -ism should present a largely all-encompassing range of thought or principles, or a definite school of thought. Below are some major systems which, as of this date, are not represented in CP:

[[Aristotelianism]] - [[Cartesianism]] - [[Pythagoreanism]] - [[Eleatics]] - [[Hegelilanism]] - [[Sophists]] - [[Neoplatonism]]

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:44, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Cynicism

2007-12-21T16:36:28Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

Cycnicism was founded by a disciple of [[Socrates]], [[Antisthenes]] (444-365 BC). The tenets of this philosophy rejected worldly pleasure in favour of happiness derived from virtue. [[Diogenes]] was the most famous Cynic.

[http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/ancient/athens/Cynicism.htm]

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Objectivism

2007-12-21T16:34:27Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

[[Objectivism]] ([[Latin]] ''ob-'' out of and ''iacio'' I am throwing, and [[Greek]] '''-ισμος''' or ''-ismos'' the doing of a thing) is a school of [[philosophy]] that holds that things in the natural world exist independently of anyone's perception of them or efforts (or lack of effort) to understand them. Objectivism ''also'' holds that ''nothing'' is provably real that one cannot ''demonstrate'' independently of one person's percept of it.

== History of Objectivism ==
Objectivism as a formal discipline began with [[Ayn Rand]], a [[Russia|Russian]]-born émigrée to the [[United States]]. Ayn Rand attended The University of Petrograd where she studied philosophy and history. She graduated in 1924. In her work, showed more than a passing familiarity with the great philosophers of ancient Western civilization. The ancient philosopher she respected the most was [[Aristotle]].

By far the most complete expression of Objectivism in a single volume is in her novel, ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''<ref name=Atlas>[[Ayn Rand|Rand, Ayn]]. ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''. New York: Random House Publishers, 1957, 1168 pages, cloth. ISBN 0394415760</ref>. However, her philosophy found expression in innumerable essays, which she published in a number of newsletters and magazines that she edited from time to time: ''The Objectivist Newsletter'', ''The Objectivist'', and ''The Ayn Rand Letter.''

Since her death in 1982, other students of hers, most notably [[Leonard Peikoff]], have tried to carry on her work. Whether they have enjoyed any success is a debatable question. For better or worse, the history of Objectivism is largely the history of Ayn Rand herself, and by the time she died, the name ''Objectivism'' was known chiefly to her admirers and to readers of her works.<ref name=Passion>[[Barbara Branden|Branden, Barbara]]. ''The Passion of Ayn Rand''. New York: Anchor Publishers, 1987, 464 pages, paperback. ISBN 038524388X</ref>

== The Fundamental Tenets of Objectivism ==
Objectivism attempts to be a "unified theory of everything worth thinking about." As such it addresses prominent issues in [[metaphysics]], [[epistemology]], [[ethics]], [[Political philosophy|politics]], and [[aesthetics]].

=== The Central Axiom and its Corollaries ===
Objectivism starts with a simple [[axiom]]: ''existence exists.''<ref name=Atlas/> To grasp that axiom is to realize two other, corollary axioms:

# Something exists that someone perceives.<ref name=Atlas/>
# Someone exists who possesses ''consciousness'', which is the faculty of perceiving what exists.<ref name=Atlas/>

=== Metaphysical Axioms and Theorems ===
Objectivism continues with a number of other corollaries:

# A is A.<ref name=Atlas/> This is also known as the Law of Identity and suggests a similar law in [[formal logic]]. But more than that, the Law of Identity holds that A has certain properties, or ''attributes'', that distinguish it incontrovertibly from B or C. If a thing has no attributes, then it is a nonentity--it does not and cannot exist.
# Consciousness exists--the Law of Consciousness. But consciousness implies something independent of consciousness. What one perceives, one does not invent--and furthermore, a thing exists whether one perceives it or not.

From these axioms, several [[theorem]]s necessarily follow, among them the Law of Non-Contradiction. Aristotle stated it thus: "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect." Objectivism states it more simply: ''contradictions do not exist.'' Therefore, if one encounters a contradiction, one should check the assumptions he has made, because at least one of them is false.

=== Epistemology ===
[[Epistemology]] (from [[Greek]] words roughly meaning "the word stands on something") deals with what a human being knows and how he knows it. Objectivism states that perception is only the beginning. Perception is sensation extended over time, and perception becomes knowledge only through ''measurement.'' On the other hand, one forms a ''concept'' of something by developing a list of attributes ''without'' the measurements of them. Apply the measurements, and instead of a concept one has an object that fits the concept.

One important result of pure Objectivism is that what one cannot perceive, one cannot know--and what no one has perceived, no one need admit the existence of. Indeed, [[Nathaniel Branden|Branden]]<ref name=BrandenBenHaz>[[Nathaniel Branden|Branden, Nathaniel]]. [http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand]. Association for Humanistic Psychology, 1984.</ref> observed that Objectivism teaches that <blockquote>(A)ny form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, (and) any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected.</blockquote>

This includes [[God]], a Concept that almost no Objectivist has ever accepted. This might be Objectivism's greatest weakness: that it will not admit that which one cannot perceive directly, but which has affected ''something else'' that one perceives, and that in a measurable way.

=== Ethics ===
[[Ethics]] is about values. What is value? From ''Atlas Shrugged''<ref name=Atlas/>:<blockquote>"Value" is what one acts to gain and/or keep; "virtue" is how one acts to gain or keep it.</blockquote>

The central contribution of Objectivism to ethics is the definition of morality. Again from ''Atlas Shrugged''<ref name=Atlas/>:<blockquote>"Value" presupposes an answer to the question, "Of value to whom, and to what?" "Value" presupposes a ''standard''...A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.</blockquote>

Objectivism then declares that the only moral code proper to man has ''man's life'' as its standard of value. Rand, Peikoff, and other students of Objectivism have always drawn a stark contrast between this standard and the standard of those they regarded as their opponents: "the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this does not mean that Objectivism extols what most people mean by ''selfishness''. Objectivism regards that sort of "selfishness" as shortsighted and non-rational. Objectivism requires that a person ''choose'' to be rational in his thinking, and should work to enhance his self-interest ''after determining what that interest is after rational and logical analysis.''

Objectivism makes at least two definitions that non-adherents might find harsh and symptomatic of [[Logical fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]:

# "Sacrifice" is the giving away of a greater value in favor of a lesser value or a non-value.<ref name=Atlas/>
# "Altruism" is sacrifice, as defined above, for the sake of persons other than oneself.

Actually, what Objectivism calls ''sacrifice'', other schools of philosophy call ''waste''. Sacrifice, according to these other schools, is actually the giving of a great value for another, still greater value. Furthermore, the definition of ''altruism'' implies that no man should be obliged, let alone forced, to care or act for the sake of other people.

Indeed, in only one context does Objectivism itself lay any obligation on its adherents to act for the sake of another, and that is in an ''emergency''--which Objectivism defines as an immediate life-threatening casualty event or condition.

Rand, Peikoff, and other adherents to Objectivism held that their greatest objection was to the use of force in social relationships. This leads directly to the Objectivist theory of politics.

=== Politics ===
[[Political philosophy|Politics]] (from the [[Greek]] '''πολις''' a city, from the organization of [[Greece|Greek]] civilization around independent city-states) is the philosophy of [[government]]--the need for it, its proper sphere, and the obligations of its subjects. The central axiom of Objectivist politics is that<blockquote>Force is permissible ''only'' in retaliation and ''only'' against those who initiate its use.<ref name=Atlas/></blockquote>

This is the Law of Retaliation, or ''Lex talionis'' in [[Latin]].

Thus a government ought not compel charity--and in this context, ''compulsion'' is the application of force to induce another person toward an action he might not otherwise take. Nor should the government compel anyone to associate with those with whom he would prefer not to associate. Freedom of association is very important in Objectivist politics.

Objectivism holds that an individual has a fundamental right to life--but this "right to life" means the right to live one's life as his self-interest dictates, not the right to expect someone else either to protect his life or to guarantee his survival.

From these principles, the only economic system with which Objectivism has any sympathy is [[capitalism]], with its emphasis on the rights of the individual. Objectivism rejects the [[welfare state]] as an improper exercise of the government's police power. (But Objectivism also would object strenuously to the body of special tax incentives and other legal provisions and regulations often called "[[corporate welfare]]." Objectivism holds that every individual, and by extension every business, must stand or fall on his, her, or its own merits.)

However, Objectivism also holds that the government ought to reserve to itself a [[monopoly]] on the exercise of force, when necessary, in retaliation against the initiators of force. As a repeated theme in Rand's novels and essays, a government ought to confine itself to three major functions:

# The police power--to protect against criminals.
# The military power--to protect against invasion from without.
# The judicial power--to protect contracts from breach or fraud, and to provide a forum for the settlement of disputes without resort to force.

From the above, one may conclude that Objectivism rejects the [[code duello]] as an improper feature of society, and even as an attribute of [[anarchy]]. In fact, Rand herself specifically stated that government must be a [[monopoly]], because any "competitive [[economy]]" of government would inevitably lead to a state not much different from gang warfare.

However, Rand herself advocated many things the support for which, from a strict read of Objectivism, is doubtful. She repeatedly stated, in a number of essays and in at least one magazine interview, that <blockquote>Just as the [[United States]] had the right to invade [[Nazi]] [[Germany]], so the United States has the right to invade [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Russia]] or any other slave pen.</blockquote> She justified this aggressive foreign policy stance by drawing up a set of four evil policies that, if any country engaged in all of the same, would make it liable for invasion by a society that did not do these things:

# Execution without a proper, fair trial
# Detention without charge
# Denial of the right of dissatisfied subjects to emigrate
# Censorship

By "censorship" Rand meant not only restrictions on political speech, but in fact any restriction on any form of artistic expression--even on forms of expression that she explicitly despised and suggested that any rational being would despise.

By her theory, then, if people were at least free to leave a society that executed people without trial, then if they did not leave, no country ought to be obliged to relieve their suffering by invasion. But if they ''could not'' leave, then their country would be liable for invasion, because they could not rationally help themselves. The freedom of emigration follows from the freedom of association--and the obligation, such as it was, of other nation-states and their militaries to come to such people's aid follows from the Objectivist ethic of emergencies, defined above.

Of course, any country that invades or otherwise attacks another, either directly or through surrogates, lays itself open to a counterinvasion by the country so attacked. This follows from the principle of the Law of Retaliation defined above.

=== Aesthetics ===
[[Art]], according to Objectivism, serves a need to allow man to ''perceive'' directly that which normally he can only ''conceive''. Art, in short, makes things real. An [[artist]] is any person who presents abstract concepts in concrete ways.

Objectivism's take on art is simple: art should uplift, and present uplifting things. The favorite school of art among students of Objectivism is [[Romantic realism]], the name that Rand gave to a school of art that emphasizes human reason and ideals and primarily portrays people striving to do great deeds, rather than suffering great disasters--in short, being ''proactive'' rather than ''reactive''. Good art, in other words, celebrates that which Objectivism itself celebrates: the ideal rational man. Forms of art that which emphasized emotion over reason, and especially anything that divorced emotion from reason, earned the consistent disdain of Rand and her colleagues. Similarly, Objectivism decries any form of art that shows human beings being reactive and slaves to emotion.

Pornography excited an interesting reaction. Objectivists detested it, on the grounds that sex was too important an activity for public display. But they feared censorship even more, on the ground that a government that stopped prurient content could stop political speech all the more easily. (Neither [[Ayn Rand]] nor any of her associates ever commented on such strictly private efforts as the [[Hays office]].)

== Controversies ==
[[Nathaniel Branden]], Rand's closest-ever associate and confidant, set forth in 1984 a number of defects in Objectivist philosophy, or at least Rand's theory and practice of it:

# A tendency to confuse "reason" with "the reasonable," essentially a problem in informal logic.
# The encouragement of its students to repress all emotion as somehow unworthy, all in the name of being proactive rather than reactive.
# A tendency toward "moralizing," or condemning others for not adhering to a strict emotional discipline.
# The [[Logical fallacy#Conflation|conflation]] of "sacrifice" with benevolence.
# Emphasizing philosophical premises to an unhealthy degree, leading to an often unwarranted judgment of ''character'' by the criterion of ''belief''.
# A dogmatic, inflexible approach to philosophy and its various disciplines, leading to the inability to forgive a mistake in philosophical formulation or application.

In this last context, Branden specifically decried Rand's conclusion that "no woman should aspire to be [[President of the United States of America]]." Rand did say that, and her justification of that stance flowed directly, oddly enough, from her theory of sex.

(In this context, Rand had no patience with the proponents and practitioners of [[feminism]] that were contemporary to her. She once said of them, with questionable justice, that they complained about the sexual objectification of women, when those who complained the loudest were "clearly in no such danger." Yet on the other hand, she regarded homemakers as "uninteresting women," and then suggested that some of them were "[[monster]]s" for advocating, for example, the prohibition of [[abortion]] and restrictions on [[contraception]].)

Rand's surviving friends tend to dismiss Branden's criticism as [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]] (or perhaps more accurately, ''argumentum ad feminam'') arising out of the rather brutal break-up of Rand and Branden's eighteen-year association. But those arguments tend to commit the same [[logical fallacy]] whereof they accuse Branden. Branden's wife [[Barbara Branden|Barbara]] presents perhaps the most balanced treatment of the Rand-Branden Affair and the ensuing controversy.

Objectivism's unabashed advocacy of capitalism often led to repeated charges that Objectivism was the ally of "big business." (In fact, on the occasion of a 1980 political demonstration called "Big Business Day," ''The Objectivist Forum'' commented quite wryly on the irony of the spectacle of hundreds of anti-business conventioneers using the services of "big business" to attend an event intended to advocate increased regulation of the largest corporations merely because they ''were'' large.) But Branden said quite clearly that the executives of large business companies ''were not'' friendly to Objectivism, because Objectivism advocates a market completely free not only of onerous taxes but also of the myriad special protections that some businesses tended to win from [[Congress]] against their competitors.

Rand has not excited much enduring controversy, mainly because those who do not hold to her philosophy, or to the political theory that flows from it, have generally preferred to ignore her. One important exception was the famous (some say infamous) review of Rand's ''magnum opus'', ''Atlas Shrugged'', by [[Whittaker Chambers]].<ref name=Chambers>[[Whittaker Chambers|Chambers, Whittaker]]. [http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp Big Sister Is Watching You]. ''[[National Review]]'', December 28, 1957. Republished on [http://www.nationalreview.com/ National Review Online], January 5, 2005.</ref> Chambers "panned" this novel severely and charged that Rand, and by extension Objectivism ''per se'', owes more to the harsh, "conquering-man" philosophy of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] than to Aristotle. He also charged that Rand, in her relentless attack upon the [[Communism|Communist]] philosophy of [[Karl Marx]], had almost become that which she professed to despise. Specifically, he suggested that while Marx advocated a [[Socialism|socializing]] elite, Rand advocated a technocratic one, to which all less technically adept men must bow. Chambers' objections mirror those of Branden to the "moralizing" and dogmatic tone of much of Rand's material, in both that novel and her later essays.

== Can Objectivism develop further? ==
This question is [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|debatable]]. Many students of Objectivism are not likely to admit that Ayn Rand's original system had any flaws. Branden, of course, asserted that Objectivism ''was'' flawed, but was not prepared to reject it entirely. He still found its emphasis on logic and of an independent reality important and beneficial.

Objectivism's chief limitation appears to be the unwillingness of its adherents and formulators to consider that anything might exist ''outside'' of perceptual reality, that might nevertheless influence that reality. This either led to, or followed from, the [[atheism]] that is one of this school's most prominent attributes. Branden reports one interesting interaction, however: Rand was not willing to accept the theory of [[evolution]] as more than an hypothesis. She couldn't accept [[Creationism|creation]], but evolution discomfited her nevertheless--perhaps because it blurred the distinction between man and animal.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/> <ref name=Parille>[[Neil Parille|Parille, Neil]], [http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml Ayn Rand and Evolution], at RebirthofReason.com</ref>

In regard to this last: Diana Mertz Hsieh accuses Branden of distorting Rand on this point, and says that Rand refused to endorse evolution merely because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgement.<ref name=poisonwell>Hsieh, Diana Mertz, [http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/poisoning-well.html Poisoning the Well], 24 March 2007</ref> In actual fact, Branden details that conversation:<blockquote>I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the [[theory of evolution]] is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "Ayn, you mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms, including humans, evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all [[God]]'s [[creation]]; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/></blockquote>What that something was, Branden never said. [[Neil Parille]] offers this explanation: that evolution cannot explain the development of consciousness, and that some of evolution's proponents, among them [[Ernst Haeckel]], put Rand off by their explicit rejection of the human will.<ref name=Parille/>

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs Objectivism] from the [[Ayn Rand Institute]]
* [http://www.ios.org/ The Atlas Society -- home of The Objectivist Center]
* [http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/ The Objectivism Wiki]
* [http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ The Importance of Philosophy]
* [[Logic]]

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Utilitarianism

2007-12-21T16:32:11Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

Utilitarianism is a political, and later philosophical, principle which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society or select individuals.

Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[rational actor]].

==Utilitarianism and utility==

"[[Utility]]" is defined as the good to be maximized. Different thinkers have further defined it as happiness, well-being or pleasure. The idea of utilitarianism as a moral code was first thought up by 18th century reformer and philosopher [[Jeremy Bentham]]. He believed that, "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." Thus, he concluded that good is whatever it is that brings on the greatest happiness. His belief was passed on by others after him.

==Utilitarianism in the social sciences==

Across the social sciences, utilitarianism is encountered in the form of rational choice theories. In [[economics]], it is the foundation of [[marginal analysis]]. In these academic contexts, utilitarianism serves as a tool for the analysis of social behavior. The partial exception to this lies in the field of [[welfare economics]], where some economists have tried to apply modern forms of the "hedonistic calculus" to issues of public choice.

==Critiques of utilitarianism==

Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus."

In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Existentialism

2007-12-21T16:31:07Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

Existentialism is both an [[atheistic]] philosophical and cultural movement. One of its central concepts is that a human being's "existence precedes essence." Generally, this says that we do not have fundamental attributes, such as morality or a soul, and that humans develop these attributes in a meaningless manner as their lives progress.
==Philosophical Movement==
The earliest existentialist was the [[atheist]] [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]. The movement did not, however, develop its name or popularity until the 20th century when it was popularized by the atheist [[Jean Paul Sartre]].<ref>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/]</ref>

At its core, existentialism denies the dependency of human existence on [[God]], and instead views human existence as an independent and meaningless form. There is little agreement among existentialists about anything specific.<ref>Existentialism Today[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#5]</ref>

==Cultural Movement==
Information Needed, please add and edit
==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Confucianism

2007-12-21T16:29:44Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

'''Confucianism''' is a [[moral]] and [[philosophy|philosophical]] belief system based on the teachings of the 5th century BC Chinese philosopher [[Confucius]].
[[category:philosophical systems]]

Neo-Confucianism

2007-12-21T16:28:41Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

{{merge|Confucianism }}
Neo-Confucianism is form of [[Confucianism]] which developed around AD 1960 in response to the growth of [[Daoism]] and [[Buddhism]] in [[China]]. It was essentialy a mixture of Buddhism and traditional Confucianism.
[[category:philosophical systems]]

Stoicism

2007-12-21T16:26:40Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

Stoicism was founded by Zeno (333-264 B.C.) in the early third century B.C. It sought to find a sense of divine [[justice]] and de-emphasized emotion and feelings, teaching that both plain and pleasure should be disregarded. Instead, cool-headed reason and [[logic]] should be used at all times and self-indulgence denied.

[[category:philosophical systems]]

Postmodernism

2007-12-21T16:25:36Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

'''Postmodernism''' refers to a range of ideas, among them that:

* Truth is a "[[social construct]]" rather than empirically provable
* One's choice of language directs how this reality is supposedly constructed (see [[political correctness]])
* There is no one superior culture; [[Western culture]] is no more advanced than any other (see [[cultural relativism]])
* Because society is a "social construct" directed by choice of language, these "systems" of "[[oppression]]" can therefore be "deconstructed" by [[deconstructing]] the language used, and replacing it with different terminology
* The frequent use of irony and humorous [[wordplay]] to shift the meanings of words is encouraged as this causes people to rethink their assumptions about culture and language.
* [[Gender role]]s are socially constructed, not [[inborn traits]]
* In philosophical terms, there are many narratives, but any push by anyone of a metanarrative is viewed as oppressive.

==See Also==
[[Nihilism]]

[[Category:Artistic movements]]
[[Category:culture]]
[[Category:philosophical systems]]

Logical positivism

2007-12-21T16:23:20Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

'''Logical positivism''', also known as logical empiricism, neo-positivism, and empirio-criticism, was a philosophical school originating in the 1920's. Logical positivism is perhaps best known today for its defense of the [[verifiability criterion of meaning]]. Its adherents attempted to rid philosophy of metaphysics by dismissing metaphysical statements as literally meaningless.

Most influential in the early development of the movement were a group of German and Austrian intellectuals meeting at the University of Vienna. This group of people became known as the Vienna Circle. Its members included, at one time or another, [[Moritz Schlick]], [[Rudolf Carnap]], [[Otto Neurath]], and [[Hans Hahn]]. There was a similarly inclined group of intellectuals meeting in Berlin that comprised such figures as [[Hans Reichenbach]], [[Carl Gustave Hempel]], and [[David Hilbert]].

[[A. J. Ayer]] introduced logical positivism to the Anglophone world after he visited Vienna. He is best known for his book, [[Language, Truth, and Logic]], first published in 1936.

===Verifiability Criterion of Meaning===

Logical positivists, in the tradition of Hume, Kant, and several other thinkers, divided propositions into two groups, namely, the [[analytic]] and the [[synthetic]]. They called "analytic" those propositions belonging to pure logic. They considered such statements to be tautological, and therefore not to say anything significant about the world. That is not to say, however, that the logical positivists considered analytical propositions to be useless; rather, analytic statements were considered to be useful in relating ideas to one another and in understanding the workings of language.

Logical positivists called "synthetic" those propositions that make significant statements about the world. In general, any proposition that is not a tautology would be considered synthetic.

Within synthetic propositions, logical positivists distinguished between those that were meaningful and those that were meaningless. It in the articulation of this demarcation that the verifiability criterion of meaning makes its appearance. While different logical positivist thinkers formulated the criterion differently, and its precise formulation continues to be problematic, the essential point is that a synthetic proposition is meaningful to a person only if insofar as the person is aware of what (theoretically possible, thought not necessarily practical) observations would verify or falsify the proposition. This was interpreted to mean that the only meaningful sentences were those that could be "translated" into reports of direct observation, with the result that logical positivists believed that anyone uttering sentences that could not be so translated was simply babbling nonsense.

It is important to note here that most logical positivists did not contend that such "babbling" was without any communicative value; rather, it can perhaps less abrasively be described cognitively meaningless, factually empty, devoid of truth-aptness. In other words, while sentences that did not meet the criterion did not express truths or falsehoods, they could still be expressive of the emotions of the speaker.

===Theology and ethics===

Applying the criterion to philosophy, logical positivists labeled as [[metaphysics]] any inquiry that depended on meaningless propositions. In particular, they believed that theology and ethics are essentially metaphysical fields of inquiry. To them, ethical statements (such as "Killing is wrong") and theological statements (e.g. "God exists" or "The soul is immortal") could not be verified or falsified by any conceivable observation, so they were neither true nor false, instead being cognitively meaningless.

Logical positivists, then, should not be characterized as denying the existence of God or gods, thought they certainly did not affirm it. They should not even be called [[agnostic]]. They considered as equally meaningless all of the characteristic theses of theists, atheists, and agnostics, namely, "There is a god or there are gods", "There are no gods at all", and "There is not enough evidence to determine whether or not there are any gods".

Most logical positivists believed that ethical propositions are expressions of emotion, attempts to evoke certain emotions in others, or attempts to induce certain behavior in others. For example, to many logical positivists, including A. J. Ayer, sentences such as "Killing is wrong" mean roughly the same as "Killing, yuck!", "Boo to killing!", or "Let us all feel bad about the thought of killing". Such a position regarding ethical statements, called [[emotivism]], is not an ethical position, but a meta-ethical one. It is a subspecies of [[moral non-cognitivism]].

===Logical positivism today===

Logical positivism is no longer held explicitly by academics. However, it has had a profound influence on the modern [[philosophy or science]], [[philosophy of mind]], and [[philosophy of language]].

===Sources===

(1) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/

(2) Ayer, Alfred J. Language, Truth, and Logic, 3rd ed. New York, Dover Publications, 1952.

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Epicureanism

2007-12-21T16:21:58Z

JFPerry: category: philosophical systems

The belief that great happiness can be achieved through the avoidance of pain and fear.

The Epicureans were founded by [[Epicurus]] (341-270 B.C.) in the late fourth century B.C. and did not believe in any divine power. They did not believe in human ability to know and understand absolute truth, instead teaching that only the senses could be trusted. They sought pleasure and inner peace, and their teachings later led to justification for excess and indulgence in whatever pleasures one desired. The Epicureans believe that there can be no pain in death because their can be no pain in non-existence, so one should not fear death. The Epicureans did not necessarily believe in an afterlife, but they believed that pain was the root of human suffering, thus death should be welcomed as the end of pain and the end of suffering.

This is a contradiction of [[Christian]] doctrine, as the [[Bible]] says, ''The fool hath said in his heart, There is no [[God]]. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The [[LORD]] looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek [[God]]. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalms 14:1-3)''

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

Scholasticism

2007-12-21T16:19:59Z

JFPerry: category: Philosophical systems

The term '''Scholasticism''' – literally 'of the schools' - designates a method, and a system of thought, that flourished among the [[Christian]] [[philosopher]]s of the Latin west in the [[Middle Ages]]. The ''goal'' of scholasticism is the reconciliation (''concordia'') of the dogmas of Christian faith, with logic and reason. Its ''method'' is logical and dialectical. Its ''system'' is a set of doctrines about the nature of man, God, creation, and the relation between these. Scholastic thought dominated European theological and philosophical thought from about the tenth century A.D. to about the sixteenth century, and has an influence well beyond that. The scholastic tradition was the principal means by which the philosophical and theological thought of the ancient world was transmitted to the modern world.

[[Neo-Scholasticism]] refers to the revival of scholastic thought and methods that began in the nineteenth century, and still flourishes today. [[Analytical Thomism]] is a mid-twentieth century branch of neo-scholasticism that seeks to reconcile the broad aims of Scholastic, and particularly Thomistic thought, with more recent developments in logic and analytic philosophy.

== History ==

Scholasticism has three distinct phases. The first is the period of the [[Dark Ages]] and its immediate aftermath, the second the 'High Scholastic' period of the twelfth, thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The third is the period of decline from the late fourteenth to the beginning of the [[Early Modern]] period.

=== Early period (5th to 10th century A.D.) ===

Early Christian thought, particularly in the [[Patristic period]], tended to to be intuitional and mystical, and not to rely on reason and logical argument. It also placed more emphasis on the sometimes mystical doctrines of [[Plato]], and less upon the thought of [[Aristotle]]. This tendency also dominated Christian thought in the [[Dark Ages]], the period that followed the destruction of the Roman empire and the end of the Patristic era in the fifth century until the beginning of the Scholastic era in the ninth century.

The first renewal of intellectual activity in the West was when [[Charlemagne]] attracted the best scholars of [[England]] and [[Ireland]], and by imperial decree in 787 A.D. established schools in every abbey in his empire. [[Peter of Pisa]] and [[Alcuin of York]] were his advisers. These schools, from which the name ''Scholasticism'' is derived, became centres of medieval learning. Much of the work of Aristotle was unknown in the West in this period. Scholars relied on translations by [[Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius | Boethius]] into Latin of Aristotle's [[Categories (Aristotle) | Categories]], the logical work [[On Interpretation (Aristotle) | On Interpretation]], and his Latin translation of Porphyry's Isagoge, which is a commentary on the Categories. The thought of Augustine was also influential in this period (as it was in practically all periods of the Christian church's history).

=== High period (11th to 14th century A.D.) ===

=== Period of decline (14th to 17th century A.D.) ===

[[Category: Philosophical systems]]
[[Category: Medieval History]]

Category:Philosophical Systems

2007-12-21T16:18:05Z

JFPerry: make sub-category of "Philosophy"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Platonism

2007-12-21T16:17:23Z

JFPerry: place in new cat: Philosophical systems

'''Platonism''' is an ancient [[philosophy]] which has had great impact on [[Christianity]]. It suggests that Matter and Idea are two extremes of "being," with Idea being the more pure and closer to the Form of the Good, or the Platonic equivalent of God. In fact, to Platonists, God is pure "Idea," while the task of the philosopher is to rise above human nature, as pure "Matter," and transcend to a higher level of "Idea."

== The Metaphor of the Cave ==
[[Plato]] created the metaphor of the cave. In this story there are a group of individuals chained in a cave with a fire to their backs. They cannot turn their heads and may only gaze upon the shadows reflecting off the cave walls. The prisoners establish a primitive social order in which respect is granted to those who can correctly predict which (completly random) shape will next be projected onto the wall. One day someone escapes and, after a long and ardous struggle symbolising how difficult and uncomfortable it can be for Man to practice philosophy and profoundly reconsider the world around him, observes the real world. He returns to tell his companions of his amazing discovery only to be refuted and disbelieved by the cave dwellers, who cannot even comprehend what he is trying to tell them, and prefer to play their shadow games. Further hurting his credibility, having been in the light he finds it difficult to operate in the dim cave and appears clumsy, and completly unable to perceive the shadows- he has no social status and is ostracised as a literal 'outsider'. In this Plato illustrates the supposed futility of shallow living and paying heed to traditional and social convention, and proposes that Man must strive out on his own to gain true knowledge.

[[category:philosophical systems]]

Euthyphro

2007-12-21T02:15:27Z

JFPerry: additional info (the Euthyphro dilemma)

'''''Euthyphro''''' is the name of one of [[Plato]]'s early [[Socrates|Socratic]] dialogues. Together with three other of his dialogues - the [[Apology]], [[Crito]] and [[Phaedo]], it forms part of a group of Platonic dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates. In modern times, the group is often published together in a single volume of that title.

In ''Euthyphro'', Socrates carries on a discussion on the nature of piety with Euthyphro, an acquaintance whom he meets on the steps of the courthouse as he (Socrates) arrives to answer to charges of impiety brought against him. Socrates discovers that Euthyphro is there in the capacity of a litigant bringing charges against his own father over the death of a laborer in his employ, one who had been retained because of his involvement in the death of a slave. For pressing charges against his father, Euthyphro had been reproached for being impious and it was this which led Socrates to inquiry about the nature of piety.

==The problem of Euthyphro==

In one of the more famous passages in this dialogue, Socrates asks:

:"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods."

==External links==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html ''Euthyphro''] Internet Classics Archive on-line version translated by Benjamin Jowett
* [http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/euthyphro/ SparkNotes philosophy study guide on ''Euthyphro'']
* [http://www.theandros.com/euthyphro.html Absurd Wisdom: an Apology for ''Euthyphro'', by John C. Medaille]

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Philosophical works]]

The Euthyphro Dilemma

2007-12-20T22:33:39Z

JFPerry: category sort order

{{merge|Euthyphro}}

The '''Euthyphro Dilemma''' is an ancient problem first postulated by [[Plato]]. It challenges religious accounts of morality by asking 'Is an act good because God approves of it, or does [[God]] approve of an act because it is good?'.

If the former option is chosen, morality becomes wholly arbitrary. God could descend from the clouds and declare the murder of black people to be morally good, and it would be so. Many theists understandably find this repulsive. Some have argued for this position, but claim that God would never do such a thing, raising further problems with regards to [[the omnipotence paradox]].

If the latter option is chosen, God becomes wholly arbitrary, as he is reduced to merely applauding or booing human actions as they occur, which theists also find unsatisfactory. Again, [[the omnipotence paradox]] comes into play.

The Euthyphro Dilemma has stubbornly resisted resolution and remains a serious problem to this day for attempts to integrate theology with ethics. [[Kant]] attempted a unique resolution with the [[moral argument]], but was ultimately unsuccessful.

[[category:philosophical works|Euthyphro]]

The Euthyphro Dilemma

2007-12-20T22:33:00Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat to "Philosophical works" cat and suggest merge with "Euthyphro"

Origen

2007-12-20T22:29:27Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat to "Philosophers" cat

'''Origen''' (185-254 A.D.) - a.k.a. Origen of Alexandria - was an early [[Christian]] [[philosopher]], who lived in the [[East]], and especially in [[Alexandria]]. His beliefs were heavily influenced by early Christian [[gnosticism]] and Eastern philosophies such as [[Plato|Neo-Platonism]].

Some teachings of Origen were declared ''anathema'', making him a [[heretic]], in the decree of an ecumenical council, which also made the famous and influential philosopher [[Arius]] a heretic, as well.

[[Category:Early Christians]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

The Republic (Philosophy)

2007-12-20T22:25:25Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat too "Philosophical works" cat (+ sort order)

'''The ''Republic''''', is an ancient text, usually attributed to [[Plato]]. The book famous for its assertion that the only people fit to rule a society are philosophers, though it also touches on dozens of other topics. The book also speaks to the composition of the human psyche, who ought to be allowed to own property, the meaning and attributes of morality, and the proper means of education, among other things.

The source of the actual philosophy is often disputed. The Republic is written in the form of a lengthy conversation between [[Socrates]] and various other people, including students and critics. Many speculate that since Socrates never wrote anything, and instead had others write for him, the Republic could truly have been Socratic philosophy. However, most attribute the Republic to Plato because the methodology of the philosophy matches him best.

While many interpret The Republic as a political treatise, much akin to Aristotle's Politics, some philosophers have proposed that it ought rather to be interpreted as an allegory of the soul, since the central question of The Republic deals with what a just man is and how his soul is rightly ordered. By this interpretation, the Philosopher King is not a literal person, but stands for the rational part of man's soul. The Guardians stand for man's spiritedness, or will, and the masses stand for the lower desires. The just man is one whose reason rules over his desires through the will. The unjust man is he whose reason is ruled by his desires. Since rationality is what separates man from beast, the result is that one in this condition acts no better than an animal.{{fact}}

[[Category:Philosophical works|Republic]]

Nicolas Malebranche

2007-12-20T22:23:51Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat to "Philosophers" cat (+ sort order)

Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) developed this theory further the philosophy of [[ontologism]].
[[Category:Philosophers|Malebranche]]

Mencius

2007-12-20T22:20:51Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat to "Philosophers" cat

'''Mencius''' is the romanised form of the [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] name, 孟子, Mengzi, a philosopher in the Confucian tradition.

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophers]]
[[category:China]]

Benedict de Spinoza

2007-12-20T22:19:25Z

JFPerry: move from "Philosophy" cat. to "Philosophers" cat (+ sort order)

'''Benedict de Spinoza''', or Baruch d'Espinoza, lived (1632-1677) in [[Amsterdam]]. He was a glass grinder whose philosophical work caused his excommunication from the Jewish synagogue.

Spinozism includes the belief that all existence consists of only one substance, such as [[God]] or nature. Under this view, everything from mind to matter is merely a manifestation of the one true reality. Evil has only a fleeting existence in the mind or heart, and is extinguished in due course by the divine Whole.

Proof (roughly):

1. There is at least one substance of the universe.
2. God exists, and is of a substance.
3. God is infinite in attributes.
4. For there to be two substances, they must differ in attributes.
5. God has all of the attributes, so no substance may differ from that substance, therefor there is only one substance, God.

Spinozism was the first of three [[pantheism]]s rejected and condemned by the [[First Vatican Council]]. Spinozism is considered to be one of the most complete expressions of monistic idealism.

[[category:philosophers|Spinoza]]
[[category:religion|Spinoza]]

Anaxagoras

2007-12-20T22:17:30Z

JFPerry: move from Philosophy category to Philosophers cat.

Anaxagoras was a Greek philosopher of Clazomenae in Asia Minor, born about 500 BC.

== His Ideas ==
Anaxagoras postulated a plurality of independent elements which he called 'seeds'. They are the ultimate elements of combination and are indivisible, imperishable primordia of infinite number, and differing in shape, color, and taste. Later writers referred to the seeds as omoiomereia (from an expression of [[Aristotle]]), meaning particles of like kind with each other and with the whole that is made up of them. They were not, however, the 'four roots', fire, air, earth, and water; on the contrary, these were compounds.

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Category:Philosophical Works

2007-12-20T22:14:10Z

JFPerry: sub-category of Philosophy category

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Euthyphro

2007-12-20T22:11:54Z

JFPerry: add external links, category

Euthyphro

2007-12-19T16:36:17Z

JFPerry: new article on one of Plato's Socratic dialogues

User talk:WilliamofOcham

2007-12-18T16:10:11Z

JFPerry: /* Philosophy articles */ typo correction in my last post

Fill in the details about this image. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Welcome, weary traveler! I see you have wiki experience. You'll fit in well here, I deem.

Please read [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] before getting too busy, and '''do communicate''' a lot with sysops, who have a measure of editorial authority here. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 15 December 2007 (EST)

The image that you requested uploaded to your user page needs an edit as to copyright status, author of the work, date of the work, and source. Can you provide that info? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Editing the info for the image is the same as any article. As to what you wrote for Wikipedia and uploaded here, please be advised that such needs Achlafly's permission; he'll more than likely approve it anyway, but it's a matter of course here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:I've been under the impression (and have told others this) that no permission is required, as long as it ''is'' your own work, and not as modified by others. It also should have a notice (on the talk page) declaring you to be the author of the original (Wikipedia) article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy articles ==

I see you are working on philosophy articles, as I am. I have started with the Pre-Socratics and, once I'm finished there, will go on to Aristotle (skipping over Plato). I am also developing a list of "high priority" philosophy articles. This list, which will be available soon, is designed to focus work on the most important such articles as well as to settle on naming conventions for same.

In all things, I try to keep in mind that Conservapedia is meant to be aimed at 14-18 year olds (see my comments on the "substance dualism" section of the "dualism" article).

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 12:03, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Ah, so you read Latin! Ditto here, but its a bit rusty. The "Latin" article is on my list for re-working.

:Eventually, Schlafly is going to need to set up some program where his horde of homeschoolers can vet the articles to see if they are understandable at the 14-18 year age level. Meanwhile, I just try to recall what it was like in the long ago distant past when I was that age. ;-)

:Maybe I shouldn't skip over Plato. That is one reason for the "project" list of philosophy articles - perhaps better to divide up the work given the small number of folks right now so as to better cover the field. I will post a list of "high priority" philosophy articles sometime in the next few days and let you know where it is.

:[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Welcome ==
I don't know why one of the other sysops or posters didn't already do this, but ...
{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)}}

== greeting to you too ==

hi, fellow traveller. i too was involved at wikipedia and found my faith challenged, even though i tried to stick to the medical articles where it seldom arises as problematic.
Goodluck with your writing endeavours.

User talk:WilliamofOcham

2007-12-18T16:09:19Z

JFPerry: /* Philosophy articles */ philosophy article work

Fill in the details about this image. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Welcome, weary traveler! I see you have wiki experience. You'll fit in well here, I deem.

Please read [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] before getting too busy, and '''do communicate''' a lot with sysops, who have a measure of editorial authority here. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 15 December 2007 (EST)

The image that you requested uploaded to your user page needs an edit as to copyright status, author of the work, date of the work, and source. Can you provide that info? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Editing the info for the image is the same as any article. As to what you wrote for Wikipedia and uploaded here, please be advised that such needs Achlafly's permission; he'll more than likely approve it anyway, but it's a matter of course here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:I've been under the impression (and have told others this) that no permission is required, as long as it ''is'' your own work, and not as modified by others. It also should have a notice (on the talk page) declaring you to be the author of the original (Wikipedia) article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy articles ==

I see you are working on philosophy articles, as I am. I have started with the Pre-Socratics and, once I'm finished there, will go on to Aristotle (skipping over Plato). I am also developing a list of "high priority" philosophy articles. This list, which will be available soon, is designed to focus work on the most important such articles as well as to settle on naming conventions for same.

In all things, I try to keep in mind that Conservapedia is meant to be aimed at 14-18 year olds (see my comments on the "substance dualism" section of the "dualism" article).

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 12:03, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Ah, so you read Latin! Ditto here, but its a bit rusty. The "Latin" article is on my list for re-working.

:Eventually, Schlafly is going to need to set up some program where his horde of homeschollers can vet the articles to see if they are understandable at the 14-18 year age level. Meanwhile, I just try to recall what it was like in the long ago distant past when I was that age. ;-)

:Maybe I shouldn't skip over Plato. That is one reason for the "project" list of philosophy articles - perhaps better to divide up the work given the small number of folks right now so as to better cover the field. I will post a list of "high priority" philosophy articles sometime in the next few days and let you know where it is.

:[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Welcome ==
I don't know why one of the other sysops or posters didn't already do this, but ...
{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)}}

== greeting to you too ==

hi, fellow traveller. i too was involved at wikipedia and found my faith challenged, even though i tried to stick to the medical articles where it seldom arises as problematic.
Goodluck with your writing endeavours.

User:JFPerry

2007-12-18T16:03:21Z

JFPerry: add Copleston quote

I enjoy working on wiki encyclopedias. Don't really care too much at all about the political slant one way or the other. Fact is, am not a conservateive - not even close.

As I read and study, I find it helpful to organize my thoughts and learning by writing about what I have read; hence the main value to me of encyclopedia work - it forces one to do just that.

I am also somewhat of a Luddite in that I believe users of the encyclopedia should get just the basic, essential facts and then log off and read a book about the subject. Hence, I feel the importance of book references in any encyclopedia article.

{{Cquote|"To mention a 'point of view' at all, when treating of the history of philosophy, may occasion a certain lifting of the eyebrows; but no true historian can write without some point of view, some standpoint, if for no other reason than he must have a principle of selection, guiding his intelligent choice and arrangement of fact.

. . . if he attempts to write history without any principle of selection, the result will be a mere chronicle and no real history, a mere concatenation of events or opinions without understanding or ''motif''."}}

::Frederick Copleston, in ''History of Philosophy'', volume 1

Anaximander

2007-12-18T16:00:56Z

JFPerry: new intro paragraph

[[Image:Anaximander.gif|thumb|150px|Anaximander]]

'''Anaximander''' (ca 610 - 546 BC) was a younger contemporary of [[Thales]] and, chronologically, the second of the three principal [[philosophy|philosophers]] of the Milesian school. He wrote the first surviving lines of western philosophy, and offered philosophical speculations in the fields of astronomy, geography, and biology.

As far as historians can tell, he was the first scientist who tried to explain the origin of human race without the mention of a creator. He believed that all life began in the sea, and at one time or another, humans were some kind of fish. Later, scientists took his ideas, (most notably [[Charles Darwin]]), and turned it into what is now known as the "theory of [[evolution]]."

==See also==

* [[Pre-Socratic philosophy]]

==External links==

''Web links''

* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Anaximander]

''Print literature''

* Barnes, J., ''Early Greek Philosophy'' (London, 1987)
* [[Frederick Copleston|Copleston, F.C.]], ''History of Philosophy'', Vol 1: Greece and Rome (Part 1 is a section on ''Pre-Socratic Philosophers'')
* Kahn, C.H., ''Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology'' (New York, 1960)
* Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E., and Schofield, M., ''The Presocratic Philosophers'' (Cambridge, 1990)

[[category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

Anaximander

2007-12-18T15:57:19Z

JFPerry: "see also" and "external links" section

[[Image:Anaximander.gif|thumb|150px|Anaximander]]
'''Anaximander''' (an axe' uh man der), (c.610 BC – c. 546 BC), [[philosopher]].

Nothing is known about where Anaximander was born or lived as an adult. His birth and death were estimated. We do know he was a pupil and friend of [[Thales]]. But, unlike his teacher, Anaximander studied life.

As far as historians can tell, he was the first scientist who tried to explain the origin of human race without the mention of a creator. He believed that all life began in the sea, and at one time or another, humans were some kind of fish. Later, scientists took his ideas, (most notably [[Charles Darwin]]), and turned it into what is now known as the "theory of [[evolution]]."

==See also==

* [[Pre-Socratic philosophy]]

==External links==

''Web links''

* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Anaximander]

''Print literature''

* Barnes, J., ''Early Greek Philosophy'' (London, 1987)
* [[Frederick Copleston|Copleston, F.C.]], ''History of Philosophy'', Vol 1: Greece and Rome (Part 1 is a section on ''Pre-Socratic Philosophers'')
* Kahn, C.H., ''Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology'' (New York, 1960)
* Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E., and Schofield, M., ''The Presocratic Philosophers'' (Cambridge, 1990)

[[category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

Thales

2007-12-18T00:11:53Z

JFPerry: add "see also" section

[[Image:Thales.gif|thumb|150px|Thales]]
'''Thales of Miletus''' (ca. 624 BC–ca. 546 BC), was a [[Greek philosopher]] and [[mathematician]] and one of the [[Seven Sages|seven wise men of antiquity]]. He was the first Greek philosopher to take an interest in [[mathematics]] and [[science]]. He was the first to apply logical proof to geometry, and proved the six basic propositions of geometry. When he traveled to [[Egypt]] he calculated the height of [[pyramids]] using [[geometry]], and would also calculate the distance of ships from the shore. He was born and lived in [[Miletus]], [[Ionia]], now western [[Turkey]].

==Thales the philosopher==

Philosophically, Thales was a [[materialism|materialist]], and a [[monism|monist]]. [[Aristotle]] says that he (Thales) was the first to consider the basic principles and originating substance of nature. When contemplating the myriad forms and changes seen in the world, the Ionian philosophers, and first among them, Thales, posited a basic unity and permanence behind the world of phenomena and its changes, something which underlay the changes around them and which remained unchanged through the various manifestations.

Thales sought the causes of phenomena in terms of naturalistic explanations rather than the personal agency of supernatural beings and thus proposed the concept of a law regulated universe, in contrast with the mythological universe of the Olympian deities. In seeking for the basic principle of matter, Thales posited a material entity, water, as this basic substance. This is what makes him a materialist, but it was his concept that there was such a basic substance which is even more important.

As [[Frederick Copleston]] stated it, summing up Thales' main philosophical contribution in his monumental ''History of Philosophy'': ". . . the importance of this early thinker lies in the fact that he raised the question, what is the ultimate nature of the world; and not in the answer that he actually gave to that question or in his reasons, be they what they may, for giving that answer."

==Thales the scientist==

Later Greek writers credited Thales with numerous discoveries and advances in [[astronomy]] and [[geometry]].

In the field of astronomy, Thales is credited by [[Herodotus]] with having predicted a [[solar eclipse]], later identified as one which occurred in the year 585 BC. Although, in the absence of Thales' actual writings, there is currently some doubt as to the authenticity and nature of this prediction, it seems certain that he knew the causes of solar (and lunar) eclipses. He is also credited with having determined the length of the solar year and the dates of the solstices, as well as the diameters of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]]. In each case, detailed observations over lengthy periods of time are necessary as well as the conception of how to carry out the tasks.

Thales, who had travelled to [[Egypt]] where he observed the practical usage of geometrical measuring techniques, took the first steps in placing geometry on a theoretical basis. He is credited with having demonstrated several basic propositions of geometry. Thales' method of "proof" was based on repeated, empirical measurements and induction.

Among the propositions which he demonstrated in this manner are: 1) that a circle is bisected by a diameter; 2) the angles at the base of an isoceles triangle are equal; 3) the angle of a semi-circle is a right angle; 4) if two straight lines intersect each other, the opposite angles are equal, and; 5) he demonstrated certain properties of similar triangles, including the principle of ratio, or proportionality. It is this latter property (of simiilar triangles) which Thales used to measure the previously unknown height of the pyramids as well as the distance of ships at sea.

==See also==

* [[Pre-Socratic philosophy]]

==External links==

There are no surviving writings of Thales. Our knowledge of Thales' life and thought comes to us in the form of commentaries by subsequent writers, principally Aristotle (with particular reference to his ''Metaphysics''), who commented on all of his predecessors, including Thales. Some modern discussions are listed below.

''Web links''

* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/thales.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Thales] - contains detailed references to many of the ancient writings discussing Thales

''Print literature''

* Barnes, J., ''Early Greek Philosophy'' (London, 1987)
* [[Frederick Copleston|Copleston, F.C.]], ''History of Philosophy'', Vol 1: Greece and Rome (Part 1 is a section on ''Pre-Socratic Philosophers'')
* Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E., and Schofield, M., ''The Presocratic Philosophers'' (Cambridge, 1990)

[[category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]
[[category:Mathematicians]]

User talk:WilliamofOcham

2007-12-17T17:03:49Z

JFPerry: Philosophy articles