Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Leda

2008-06-15T18:56:20Z

Leda: /* MYOB */

Warning: don't misuse someone's talk page with incoherent postings. Each entry has a talk page, as you probably realize. Let's keep [[talk pollution]] to a minimum, OK? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I love that poem.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:45, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== MYOB ==

Stay out of other people's quarrels with administration, or face blockage yourself.

You don't know the half of the issues involved.

And your language is totally inappropriate. I insist that you retract it.

Don't bother responding on my talk page; I'm going to watch this one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:02, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Retract what? You're making yourself look like an idiot, which is especially unfortunate given that your Solar System articles generally suggest otherwise. I simply told you what Bodhan or Dan should've told you last night, had they either the balls or the inclination to do so.

:I repeat: it's OK to make mistakes. It's easy to type something in haste that has stronger or wider implications than those you would intend upon reflection. And when called on it, a thoughtful man should find it equally easy to concede the narrow semantic point and restate his case more precisely. Bluntly: the trick is to stop digging.

:Sincerely, --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 14:56, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2008-06-15T14:55:23Z

Leda: Contempt

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Contempt ==

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my complete and unreserved contempt for your recent behaviour. You backed ''yourself'' into a corner and are now lashing out at those who had the temerity to point out as much. It's OK to make mistakes. All of this could have been avoided with a simple ''"Actually, that was a bit of sweeping statement. What I meant to say was..."'' Your name is TerryH, not TerryK, so stop damn well acting like him. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Douglas Jesseph

2008-06-14T15:10:36Z

Leda: copyedit

'''Dr. Doug Jesseph''' is a professor of [[philosophy]] at North Carolina State University. He received his Ph.D in Philosophy from [[Princeton University]] in 1987, after gaining a B.A. Mathematics and Philosophy from Macalester College in 1981.<ref>http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dmjphi/Main/JessephCV.pdf</ref>

Jesseph has been described as "the most impressive debater to date" by [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of the pro-atheism website [[Internet Infidels]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> However, in a 1996 debate with [[William Lane Craig]], Jesseph claimed that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed [[Atheism|atheistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> This confidence was not shared by the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]]. Indeed, in 1996, John Horgan wrote that "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In a 1996 edition of ''[[Scientific American]]'', Horgan went on to say: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>
==External Links==
*[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dmjphi/ Dr. Doug Jesseph's website at North Carolina State University]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/jesseph-craig0.html A transcript of the oral debate which was held in 1996 at North Carolina State University between atheist philosopher Dr. Doug Jesseph and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-14T14:26:33Z

Leda:

Suggest moving this to Essay:Lenski Dialogue or Conservapedia:Lenski Dialogue, for two reasons.

One: As with your [[A thought for Christmas]] page, this is /not/ encyclopedic content. Two: It's spelled dialogue.

Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Arab American

2008-06-11T22:16:51Z

Leda: fmt experiment

[[Image:Arab demographics.jpg|right|Arab-American demographics]]

'''Arab-Americans''' are [[Americans]] of [[Arab]] ancestry. Over 4 million Americans trace their ancestry to Arab countries, and the vast majority are citizens of the United States. Over 75% are [[Christians]], many having escaped religious persecution in their homelands. Today, one-third of Arab-Americans live in [[California]], [[New York]], and [[Michigan]]. They are better-educated than the average American. The average Arab-American entrepreneur may have a higher personal and household income than a non-Arab-American counterpart in most regions of the United States. <ref>[http://www.aafusa.org/arabamericans_welleducated.htm Arab American demographics]</ref>
The overall U.S. population grew by 13% in the 1990s, while the Arab-American increased by 38%.

A majority of Arab-Americans, around 62%, originate from [[Lebanon]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]] and [[Jordan]].

[[Image:Arab-american girl.jpg]]

After the horrible events of [[9/11|Sept. 11, 2001]], Arab-Americans braced for the worst, but thankfully the fears of heavy reprisals did not come as the vast majority of America realized they were not to blame. Incidents of harassment were up slightly from year to year.

Organizations like the "American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee" are working to empower Arab Americans and defend the civil rights of all people of Arab heritage in the United States. <ref>[http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=119 What is ADC?]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Arab]]
*[[Islam]]
*[[Arabic language]]
*[[Saudi Arabia]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Ramadan]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.allied-media.com/Arab-American/Arab_Organizations.htm National Arab American Organizations]
*[http://www.arabamericanmuseum.org/ Arab American National Museum]
*[http://www.aauj.edu/AAUJ_site/index.php The Arab American University]
*[http://www.aafusa.org/ American Arab Forum]
*[http://www.aaiusa.org/ Arab American Institute]
*[http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/ The Arab-American News]
*[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/12/with_holidays_a_vow_for_better_jewish_muslim_relations/ A vow for better Jewish, Muslim relations in US]
*[http://www.arabcenter.net/ Arab Center of Washington]
*[http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/american-muslims-ready-to-attack-usa/ American Muslims Ready to Attack USA?] by [[Sher Zieve]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Muralism

2008-06-05T21:19:19Z

Leda: /* Violation of Commandment 3 */

== Violation of Commandment 3 ==

<blockquote>
'''Commandment 3: Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.'''
</blockquote>

Bare breasts are not "family-friendly" in my opinion. You couldn't find a different example of a mural? -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 08:46, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: This is art. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:47, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:: So that means anything goes? Art is above the rules? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You should not go to the [[Louvre]]! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: An artist here in Australia has been in the news for photographs of naked minors. The police have seized them on the grounds of them being child pornography. The "cultural elite" have been excusing them on the grounds of them being "art". Anybody else in possession of pictures of naked children not their own would be charged with possession of child pornography. Why are artists considered exempt from laws that apply to everybody else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: What does that have to do with the discussion at all? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 13:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: It has to do with whether the "this is art" response in any way answers the objection. It is meant to show that "this is art" should not be a valid response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Well, photographs of naked minors are pretty clearly not art. Non-pornographic murals quite clearly are. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Philip, Liberty is often represented as a woman with one or both breasts bared. Don't ask me why. Hope that helps. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 17:19, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Scopes Trial

2008-05-29T23:16:26Z

Leda: copyedit intro

The '''Scopes Trial''' took place in [[Tennessee]] in 1925. It was engineered as a challenge to the state's Butler Act which prohibited public schools from teaching the theory that man had evolved from more primitive life forms. The willing defendant, John Scopes, was duly convicted, although this was later overturned on a technicality. The trial gained notoriety after it was dramatized for both stage (1955) and screen (1960). Titled ''[[Inherit the Wind]]'', both dramatizations distorted the facts of the case and were promoted to harm [[Christianity]].<ref>"'Inherit the Wind' relentlessly distorts what happened in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925."[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/2/story_226_1.html]</ref><ref>As recently as April 17, 2007, the ''Village Voice'' endorsed a new Broadway rendition of ''Inherit the Wind'' as "a dramatization of the 1925 [Scopes] trial."[http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0716,feingold,76394,11.html]</ref>

== Publicity Motivation ==
The impetus for the Scopes trial began in a meeting among town leaders at a drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, in response to a newspaper advertisement placed by the American Civil Liberties Union ([[ACLU]]) offering to provide legal services to anyone willing to be prosecuted under the Butler Act.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Linder|2002}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> Town leaders agreed that a trial would provide publicity to the town,<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}</ref> whose population had dwindled to 1,800.<ref>{{hnb|Linder|2002}}</ref> The town leaders found a willing defendant in John Scopes, a gym teacher and football coach who also substituted (sometimes as a biology teacher), though Scopes could not recall ever teaching evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}. See also {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> John Scopes told the town leaders, "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."

== Grand Jury ==
Racing other Tennessee towns, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=108}}</ref> He was indicted on May 25, after three students testified against Scopes at the Grand Jury, at Scopes' behest.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=89, 107}}</ref>

== The Trial ==
The trial in 1925 of [[John Scopes]] for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of [[Darwinism]]. The [[ACLU]] and [[liberal]] trial lawyer [[Clarence Darrow]] brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the evangelical [[Christian]] who had been Secretary of State in the Wilson Administration, won a legal victory in the trial.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in government [[school]]s that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of [[evolution]]. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and [[eugenics]] were indisputable science to be taught to students.

Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was [[Nietzsche]]'s atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

:Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

:Judge--All right. (Applause in audience.) …

:Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.

:Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion. ....

:Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?

:Bryan--No.

:Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?

:Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter)

:Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?

:Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.

:Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?

:Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, and he sometimes succeeded. For example, Darrow grilled Bryan on the topic of Bryan's literal interpretation of the Bible. Notably, Darrow successfully embarrassed Bryan on the issue of how the sun stood still for Joshua in the Old Testament.

:Darrow--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?

:Bryan--I do.

:Darrow--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?

:Bryan--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.

:Darrow--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?

:Bryan--I don't know what they thought.

:Darrow--You don't know?

:Bryan--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.

:Darrow-- Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?

:Bryan--No.

:Darrow--You have not?

:Bryan-- No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.

:Darrow-- I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?

:Bryan-- No.

:Darrow--Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?

:Bryan--You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.

:Darrow--Don't you believe it?

:Bryan--I would want to hear expert testimony on that.

:Darrow--You have never investigated that subject?

:Bryan--I don't think I have ever had the question asked.

:Darrow--Or ever thought of it?

:Bryan--I have been too busy on thinks that I thought were of more importance than that.

A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

:Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

:Bryan--I believe that.

:Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

:Bryan--No, sir.

:Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

:Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

===The conclusion===
The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But instead of upholding his end of the bargain, Darrow stunned the public by taking the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal. <ref>The Tennessee Constitution had a clause that any fine that high must be set by a jury, not by the judge. The state's Supreme Court vacated the verdict due to that, and then ruled that because Scopes no longer lived in the state, the case was moot.</ref>

== The movie and play ==
The play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the adapted movie, were fictional accounts of the Scopes Trial.<ref>http://www.themonkeytrial.com/</ref> Several modifications were made; characters names were changed, and many crucial facts were changed. The authors have said that the play was really an attempt to mock Senator [[Joseph McCarthy]], and to equate anti-communism with anti-intellectualism.<ref>http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2005/07/08/07</ref> The movie featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

The movie portrayed the character based on Bryan as a complete buffoon. Bryan's death was also portrayed as happening in the courthouse, when in fact he was an elderly man suffering from diabetes who died peacefully in his sleep.

American history books often describe this case as a catalyst for evolution supporters.<ref>The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition, Chapter 23: The 1920s: Coping with Change, Paul S. Boyer, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Carleton College; et al. (a commonly used American history textbook for Advanced Placement US History classes).</ref>

== Aftermath ==
Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep during his afternoon nap after church five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=199}}</ref> Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.

Tennessee continued to downplay evolution in its schools until 2005.<ref>http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=352&pubsubid=1169#1169</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==Sources==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Coulter
| Given = Ann
| Year = 2006
| Title = Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| Publisher = Crown Forum.
| ID = ISBN 978-1400054206
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward John Larson
| Year = 2006
| Title = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 978-0465075102
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Linder
| Given = Douglas
| Year = 2002
| Title = The Scopes Trial: An Introduction
| Publisher = University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
| URL = http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm
}} Retrieved on 05-11-2007

[[Category:United States Law]]
[[category:evolution]]
[[category:creationism]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-26T00:22:16Z

Leda: /* Rob Knox */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values

2008-05-25T22:35:39Z

Leda: removing Rob Knox example per talk page

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepherd]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his "fate" soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in "Brokeback Mountain." The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

:Inherit the Wind <fill in>

==Divorce==

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], a [[Christian]] actor and director, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney stared in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Hydrogen

2008-05-15T21:18:24Z

Leda: copyedit

{{Element | name=Hydrogen | symbol=H | anumber=1 | amass=1.001 amu | noe=1 | class=Gas| cstructure=Unknown | color=Unknown | }}
'''Hydrogen''' is the most abundant of all the [[element]]s,<ref>Hydrogen makes up roughly 75% of the matter in the [[universe]].</ref> and has the [[chemical symbol]] H and an [[atomic number]] of 1. Despite this abundance, naturally occurring elemental hydrogen is extremely rare on [[Earth]].

==Composition of the atom==
Hydrogen [[atom]]s normally consist of a single [[proton]] and [[electron]], with no [[neutron]]. Other [[isotopes]] are formed as the atom gains neutrons: [[deuterium]] (one neutron) and [[tritium]] (two neutrons). Tritium is [[radioactive]].

==Compounds==
Hydrogen can be found in both [[organic]] and [[inorganic]] compounds.<ref>For example, [[hydrocarbon]]s and metal hydrides, respectively</ref> It is an important component of [[water]].

==Fuel for vehicles==
Hydrogen is a principal component of [[fuel cell]]s, which have the potential to be a major form of alternative energy in the future. Fuel cells are very clean energy sources; their only by-products are [[water]] and heat. Since no [[pollutant]]s or [[greenhouse gas]]es are produced, the use of fuel cells could provide cleaner air and potentially slow down [[global warming]].

Unfortunately, hydrogen is not a viable fuel source at present. Today's average car, for example, would require an unfeasibly large fuel tank to carry enough hydrogen for practical purposes. Hydrogen is also extremely [[flammable]] and suitable safeguards are needed to reduce the chances of a fatal explosion in an accident.

If hydrogen could be used in cars, it would be important in establishing the [[hydrogen economy]].

==Notes and references==
<references/>

James Joyce

2008-05-14T20:16:20Z

Leda: sentence struc.

'''James Joyce''' (1882 - 1941) was an author and poet born in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]], to [[Roman Catholic]] parents. Joyce was initially educated by the [[Jesuit]] order, but he rejected Catholicism by the age of 16. Despite this tempestuous early relationship with the Irish Roman Catholic Church, the philosophy of [[Thomas Aquinas]] would remain a strong influence on him. He lived in poverty until the publishing of his controversial novel ''Ulysses'' in 1922. Joyce revolutionized the treatment of plot and characterization in fiction and is best known for his use of the [[stream of consciousness]] style. He married Nora Barnacle in 1931; a son was born in 1905, and a daughter in 1918. He died in [[Zurich]] in 1941.

== Notable works==
* ''Ulysses''
* ''Finnegans Wake''
* ''Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man''
* ''Dubliners'', a collection of short stories

== See also ==

*[[Marcel Proust]]
*[[Franz Kafka]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Joyce, James}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Poets]]
[[Category:Irish People]]
[[Category:Writers]]

Amino acid

2008-05-14T20:03:04Z

Leda: /* Formation of zwitterions */ sp

'''Amino acids''' are a group of 21 different [[molecule]]s which, when [[chemical bond|bonded]] in sequence, make up [[protein]]s. They consist of an [[organic]] side chain bonded to an ''[[amine]]'' and a ''[[carboxylic acid]]'' (-COOH) group (hence the name ''amino acid''). These two different [[functional group]]s make amino acids [[bifunctional]].

==Table of Properties==

A table of amino acid name, abbreviation and properties is as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
! Amino Acid
! 3-Letter
! 1-Letter
! Side chain polarity
! Side chain acidity or basicity
|- align="center"
| Alanine
| Ala
| A
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Arginine
| Arg
| R
| polar
| strongly basic
|- align="center"
| Asparagine
| Asn
| N
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Aspartic acid
| Asp
| D
| polar
| acidic
|- align="center"
| Cysteine
| Cys
| C
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Glutamic acid
| Glu
| E
| polar
| acidic
|- align="center"
| Glutamine
| Gln
| Q
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Glycine
| Gly
| G
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Histidine
| His
| H
| polar
| weakly basic
|- align="center"
| Isoleucine
| Ile
| I
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Leucine
| Leu
| L
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Lysine
| Lys
| K
| polar
| basic
|- align="center"
| Methionine
| Met
| M
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Phenylalanine
| Phe
| F
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Proline
| Pro
| P
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Serine
| Ser
| S
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Threonine
| Thr
| T
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Tryptophan
| Trp
| W
| nonpolar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Tyrosine
| Tyr
| Y
| polar
| neutral
|- align="center"
| Valine
| Val
| V
| nonpolar
| neutral
|}
[[Category:Biology]][[Category:Chemistry]]

== α-amino acids ==
'''α-amino acids''' (α is the Greek letter ''[[alpha]]'') have the general formula '''RCH(NH2)COOH'''. There are around 20 naturally occurring α-amino acids which [[polymer]]ise by [[condensation polymerisation]] to form all known [[polypeptides]] (which form the primary structure of [[protein]]s) in biological organisms during [[gene translation]].

== Zwitterions ==
Due to the acidic carboxylic acid group and the alkaline amine group on amino acids they can form ions with themselves called '''zwitterions'''. The word zwitterion is derived from the German for [[hermaphrodite]], and in this case refers to the fact that amino acid zwitterions have both positive and negative [[charge]]s.

=== Formation of zwitterions ===
Zwitterions form from amino acids when the hydrogen from the carboxylic acid group (-COO'''H''') dissociates from the molecule and forms a [[dative covalent bond]] with the nitrogen in the amine group (-'''N'''H2). This forms an ion with two charges: RCH(NH3+)COO-.

=== Physical properties of α-amino acids due to zwitterions ===
The formation of zwitterions dramatically affects the physical properties of amino acids. The zwitterion is the predominant form in the [[solid phase]] and aqueous [[solution]]. Due to the two charges on zwitterions, there is a much stronger intermolecular attraction between the ions, raising the melting point of an amino acid far above the melting point of organic compounds with similar [[molecular mass]] and numbers of [[electron]]s. For example, the amino acid [[glycine]] decomposes at 262°C (without melting) where propanoic acid melts at -21°C<ref>Chemistry 2, Ratcliff B. & Eccles H., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79882-5</ref>.

== Optical isomerism of amino acids ==
All α-amino acids except glycine CH2(NH2)COOH have four different groups around the alpha carbon, forming a [[chiral centre]] and allowing [[optical isomerism]] to occur.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Gun

2008-02-21T23:21:58Z

Leda:

[[Image:Glock30.jpg|right|200px]]
A '''gun''' is a weapon which fires a [[bullet]], dart or other projectile at extremely high [[speed]]s. As a range weapon of formidable efficacy, it affords its bearer the [[power]] of [[life]] and [[death]] over any living target, without the bearer necessarily having to place him/herself in harm's way. Given the [[God]]-like power that such weapons afford, and the seductive nature of power in general, it is unsurprising that those with the right to bear them are often implacably opposed to the withdrawal or circumscription of that right.

[[Police]] are routinely armed in some countries, but not in others. Some question whether unarmed police can properly protect citizens from gun-wielding [[criminal]]s, as they must wait for the arrival of specialist firearms officers before being able to act.

The four main types of modern firearms today are bolt-operated, pump action, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. In a bolt-action weapon, each new [[round (ordnance)|round]] must be chambered manually, by moving the breech to eject the empty casing. In pump action guns (usually shotguns) a new round must be manually chambered by pulling back on the underside of the weapon. In semi-automatic weapons, each pull of the trigger fires a bullet. In fully automatic weapons, bullets will be fired as long as the trigger is depressed until either the trigger is released, the gun jams, or runs out of ammunition.

==Gun control==
The cultural issues surrounding guns are many and widely debated. [[Conservative]]s generally prefer to reserve for the [[individualism|individual]] [[the right to self-defense]] through the use of guns and other weapons. [[Liberal]]s generally prefer to delegate this right to guards, police, and the [[military]], or even completely deny that it is an important right.{{fact}}

Studies have repeatedly shown that law-abiding and right-thinking citizens carrying guns are statistically an effective deterrent against crimes. Further comparison between different states by [[John Lott]] indicates that states that have more conservative gun laws have distinctly lower crime rates, violent crime rates, and firearms [[homicide]]s than states with more liberal gun laws.

[[Second Amendment|Guns are also a defense against a tyrannical government.]] If a person has the power to take the life of another, other people will not commit crimes against them. The 20th century has proved repeatedly that a well-armed and dedicated guerrilla army can defeat even the strongest occupying army using only small arms.

== Science Fiction ==

[[Science fiction]], such as [[Star Trek]], has postulated many different types of directed energy weapons. These are guns that fire beams, waves, or packets of energy. Some energy guns can be set to stun, not to wound or kill. Most firearms legislation would not classify these as firearms, so their ownership would be unrestricted, as are many non-firearm weapons such as flame throwers.

==See also==
*[[Gun control]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Guns]]