Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Parrot

2011-05-11T21:58:20Z

KimbaTWL: A number of parrots are not tropical.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Parrot
|image=Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Aves
|subclass=Neornithes
|infraclass=Neoaves
|superorder=Psittacimorphae
|order=Psittaciformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=Cacatuidae Psittacidae Strigopidae
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Parrots''' are [[bird]]s that come in a wide variety of bright colors. They are distinguished by having strong curved [[beak]]s and an upright posture. They are also noted for being highly [[intelligent]] for an animal. Their ability to imitate human speech makes them a popular pet, even though a parrot doesn't always completely understand things it says (parrots are intelligent birds and sometimes parrots have a degree of understanding of words they speak).[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion] [[African Gray Parrot]]s are especially notable for their eloquative talents. There are over 350 different species in the parrot family. The largest variety of parrots are macaws, which are native to South and Central America.

== External links ==

*[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion Parrot feathers - a problem for evolutionists]

[[Category:Birds]]

Talk:Professor values

2011-05-11T03:26:41Z

KimbaTWL: /* Suggested move */

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm

I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp

Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== this article is ridiculous ==

it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal fluff ==

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Recent edit==
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

== Blatant factual error ==

In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.

: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Doctor values? ==

Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?

If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==

[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]

An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

== Lenski ==

The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Crimes and Unusual Behaviors ==

Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382043/Academic-hosted-house-party-girl-15-died-overdose-wrote-report-concluded-Cannabis-good-you.html]

== Suggested move ==

This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of "Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if I agree. For example I take issue with your political values vs politician values example. I'm not an expert on grammar by any means, but if I were to hear "political values" - i would think you'd be talking about someone's political ideology. Whereas politician values would specifically talk about politicians' values. Also the article title is a play off "Hollywood values" - which is a compound noun (I think. maybe? Well ... it's two nouns) just like this article, whereas political values would by adjective noun.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:: You make a good point about "Political values". I think that if one was writing about values held by politicians the best title would probably be "Politicians' values". Likewise, another option for this article would be "Professors' values" (although I prefer "Professorial values" because I think it is slightly more accurate). --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 23:26, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Professor values

2011-05-10T22:55:46Z

KimbaTWL: /* Suggested move */

Talk:Professor values

2011-05-10T22:55:03Z

KimbaTWL: /* Suggested move */ new section

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm

I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp

Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== this article is ridiculous ==

it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal fluff ==

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Recent edit==
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

== Blatant factual error ==

In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.

: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Doctor values? ==

Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?

If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==

[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]

An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

== Lenski ==

The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Crimes and Unusual Behaviors ==

Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382043/Academic-hosted-house-party-girl-15-died-overdose-wrote-report-concluded-Cannabis-good-you.html]

== Suggested move ==

This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-05-09T03:43:41Z

KimbaTWL: /* Conservative words and terms */

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to [[Harry Hopkins]] like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have since developed.

[[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
!Most Prolific Periods
|-
|1600s
|25
|period following publication of [[KJV]]
|-
|1700s
|50
|[[Great Awakening|Great Awaken.]], [[American Revolution|Am. Revol.]], [[Constitutional Convention|Const. Conv.]]
|-
|1800s
|100
|1820s - political transition and conflict
|-
|1900s
|200
|1940s - [[World War II|WWII]] and postwar transition
|-
|2000s
|16 (preliminary)
|
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that 'society,' and not individuals, are responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help, revolutionary program to improve health, he entitled his ground-breaking book in 1968 ''Aerobics''.
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|American exceptionalism
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1941
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that the baby boom actually started before World War II, contrary to what textbooks teach.
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by John Adams<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|someone who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative</ref>
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England".<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|coolant
|1926
|a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|Den mother
|1936
|leader of children's group
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where younger people are attracted to it
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|flood
|1660s
|''verb'', referring to the flowing of water over land. Reminiscent of the [[Great Flood]]. The word is often shunned by [[Liberal|liberals]] in favour of the less evocative word "flooding".
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1701
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|liberal creep
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obambulate
|1600
|From Latin ''obambulatus'', to walk to or before, akin to ''wander''. Word currently claimed to have been invented by Rush Limbaugh in 2011 and used in reference to [[Barack Obama]], yet it is found in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries prior to 1991.
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is reward and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities and a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>force times distance</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of the United States
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|blame shift
|false accusations
|e.g., guns blamed for an increasing murder rate
|-
|buycott
|counter support
|An effort to cooperate and promote an organization or a process to nullify campaigns that are targeted by boycott protests.
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|Constitutional values
|adherence to righteousness as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]
|principles set in the Declaration
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|[[earmark]]
|
|spending on specific projects at the request of a particular congressman, and without meaningful examination by others voting on it
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Fleebagger
|Oath breakers
|Describes [[liberal]] politicians who avoid their sworn duties as a way to advance their political agenda.
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|homo-fascist <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1318230 LaBarbera: Apple's action stems from 'homo-facism', OneNewsNow, March 25, 2011]</ref>
|LGBT Stormtrooper
|Guardians of gender identity ideology
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|manufactured outrage
|fake tears
|liberal politicians and the liberal media's method of stroking anger to pursue an agenda.
|-
|media vigilantism
|soviet-style censorship
|media's public campaign to demonize dissent against people or groups, such as [[Juan Williams]].
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|narrative hysteria
|delusional finger-pointing
|a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|this term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|a term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|a euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|displaced foreign traveler <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/07/bureaucrats-now.html Bureaucrats Now Call Illegal Aliens "Displaced Foreign Travelers", Moonbattery.com, July 21, 2010]</ref>
|2010
|another politically correct term for [[illegal alien]].
|-
|distributive justice
|
|a term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|divided government
|1975
|a pejorative term used by liberals to insist on control of all of government, as when they used the term to urge the election of the Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] to work with the Democratic-controlled Congress
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|Used to describe the movement in the 18th-century which sought to replace God with atheism.
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|the movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|the baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"a style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[human security]]
|1941
|A vague [[socialist]] concept of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear' championed by FDR, latter by the UN.
|-
|[[illegal war]]
|1960's
|A war not authorized by the United Nations. Prior to the UN, America's involvement in WWI and the U.S. declaring war on Germany in WWII can be considered an illegal war by liberals. America was never attacked.
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|landmark decision
|1950
|a major court decision, used to promote the idea that values are dictated by liberal elites
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|reproductive health
|1994 <ref>defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference</ref>
|abortion supporters jargon for rights/justice for pregnant women, no rights/justice for the child.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|stimulus packages
|2009
|used by government(s) to be perceived as taking unprecedented measures to stimulate aggregate economic demand; during a crisis on economic growth and private jobs, liberal government entities are known to deceptively take advantage of its subject in the form of "stimulus packages," as an opportunity to pursue policies that further social and environmental agendas.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/62/42555546.pdf For a stronger, cleaner, ''fairer'' world economy], ''Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development'' (OECD), 2010.</ref>
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|VIP
|1933
|Very Important Person, a person with special privileges, [[elitism]]. Unknown to liberals, everyone is very important to God.
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|11
|-
|1900s
|35 (10 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|6
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who delights in taking a position contrary to others
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting racial, ethnic, gender alliances for political gain
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|reverse engineer
|1973
|to deconstruct a product (or software) in order to understand how it works, often with the purpose of copying it
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|Whip<ref>In its political usage.</ref>
|late 1800s
|An elected position in each political party for the legislator responsible for gathering and confirming support for the party position on particular bills. This term is derived from "whipper-in," which in fox-hunting refers to the man who prevents hunting dogs from straying amid a chase.<ref>http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/11/durbin_re-elected_number_two_s.html</ref>
|-
|wiki
|1995
|a website (or website software) that facilitates contributions and corrections by the public
|-
|working class
|1789
|those who work regular, 40-hour weeks in manual labor, such as factory jobs
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|connive
|1601
|to pretend ignorance
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|disorder
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited; inspired by Caspar Milquetoast, the unassertive character in "The Timid Soul" cartoon strip by Harold T. Webster, which ran in the New York Herald Tribune on Sundays beginning in 1924.
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]
*[http://dictionary.reference.com/ Dictionary.com]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Secularized Language‎]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]