https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Maninahat 2026-10-25T22:54:16Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941973 2011-11-30T22:55:41Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical works, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those originally positioned at the high point of the wheel will find themselves descending, whilst those at the bottom will discover their prospects improving as they approach the top. Thus whilst some characters may lose all that is dear to them, others will simultaneously have good fortunes and get what they want. In traditional narratives, this often ultimately leads to the death of the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]<br /> [[Category:Dramatic terminology]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941972 2011-11-30T22:54:21Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical works, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those originally positioned at the high point of the wheel will find themselves descending, whilst those at the bottom will discover their prospects improving as they approach the top. Thus whilst some character may lose all that is dear to them, others will have good fortunes and get what they desire by the end of the narrative. In traditional narratives, this often means death for the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]<br /> [[Category:Dramatic terminology]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941971 2011-11-30T22:52:48Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical works, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those at the high point will find themselves descending whilst those at the bottom, discover their prospects improving. Thus whilst some character may lose all that is dear to them, others will have good fortunes and get what they desire by the end of the narrative. In traditional narratives, this often means death for the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]<br /> [[Category:Dramatic terminology]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941970 2011-11-30T22:49:07Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical works, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those at the high point will find themselves descending whilst those at the bottom, discover their prospects improving. Thus whilst some character may lose all that is dear to them, others will have good fortunes and get what they desire by the end of the narrative. In traditional narratives, this often means death for the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941969 2011-11-30T22:48:30Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical Greek Drama, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those at the high point will find themselves descending whilst those at the bottom, discover their prospects improving. Thus whilst some character may lose all that is dear to them, others will have good fortunes and get what they desire by the end of the narrative. In traditional narratives, this often means death for the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peripeteia&diff=941968 2011-11-30T22:48:01Z

<p>Maninahat: Created page with &quot;'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to Aristotle, Tragedy in partic...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Peripeteia''' is a sudden change or reversal in circumstances. The term is most commonly associated with Classical drama, and according to [[Aristotle]], [[Tragedy]] in particular. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.01.0056%253Asection%253D1447a= ''Poetics'' -- Aristotle]&lt;/ref&gt; Though traditionally associated with Classical Greek Drama, Peripeteia is a pervasive trope in almost all dramatic narratives, from Shakespeare, all the way through to the 2011 film [[Captain America|''Captain America'']].<br /> <br /> ==The Wheel of Fortune==<br /> <br /> Peripeteia is often described as a wheel of fortune. As the wheel turns, those at the high point will find themselves descending whilst those at the bottom, discover their prospects improving. Thus whilst some character may lose all that is dear to them, others will have good fortunes and get what they desire by the end of the narrative. In traditional narratives, this often means death for the [[Tragedy|unlucky]], and [[Comedy|marriage/love]] for the fortunate.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Greek Tragedy]]<br /> * [[Dramaturgy]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Theatre]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Mayor_of_Casterbridge&diff=941966 2011-11-30T22:25:52Z

<p>Maninahat: Created page with &quot;''' ''The Mayor Of Casterbridge'' ''' is an 1886 English novel by Thomas Hardy. The story is a pastoral tragi-drama, taking place in Hardy's fictional county of [[Wessex]...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>''' ''The Mayor Of Casterbridge'' ''' is an 1886 [[English]] novel by [[Thomas Hardy]]. The story is a pastoral tragi-drama, taking place in Hardy's fictional county of [[Wessex]]. <br /> <br /> ==Plot==<br /> <br /> After a quarrel with his wife, Susan at a county fair, the drunken Michael Henchard offers to sell Susan their daughter, Elizabeth-Jane to the highest bidder. A sailor buys the two women, and takes them away to sea. <br /> <br /> Eighteen years later, Henchard has done well for himself. He is a sobre, hard working, wealthy grain merchant, and has become the mayor of the town of Casterbridge. He is still however, a rash individual and is somewhat unpopular with the town's folk. Further more, he keeps his past, including the sale of his wife and child, a secret. This becomes a problem when he develops a romantic attachment to one Lucetta Le Seuer. To keep Lucetta's reputation from being sullied, Henchard is required to marry her. But due too his still standing marriage with Susan, such a relationship would be bigamous. Susan then unexpectedly arrives at Casterbridge with Elizabeth-Jane. <br /> <br /> Also arriving is Donald Farfrae, a Scottish grain merchant. He becomes a business partner and confidant of Henchard. Henchard courts and remarry's Susan, pretending she is a new aquaintance and not his previous wife. Lucetta is devestated at being abandoned by Henchard. From this point onward, Henchard's fortunes go into steep decline. A combination of bad luck, and the rising popularity of the more amicable Farfrae, threatens to undermine Henchard's wealth and standing. He becomes jealous of Farfrae, who Elizabeth-Jane has fallen for. The two wish to marry, but Henchard prohibits it. Susan dies, leaving a letter for Henchard. The letter reveals that Elizabeth-Jane is not Henchard's daughter (who had died at sea in infancy), but a daughter of the sailor Susan was sold to. Henchard chooses to keep this a secret.<br /> <br /> Lucetta has inherited a sum of money, and has moved to Casterbridge. There, she hopes to rekindle her relationship with Henchard. Whilst she is there, a witness at the fair, eighteen years back, reveals Henchard's rowdy past. Lucetta decides she does not want to persue a relationship with Henchard. Instead, she falls for Farfrae. Henchard, now financially desperate from his bad businesses and lack of fortune, realises he must marry Lucille for her money. He tries to pressure her into marriage, but she reveals that she has just married Farfrae in secret. Henchard is bankrupt, whilst Farfrae buys his old business. farfrae tries to offer work and help to Henchard (who he has always regarded as a friend, rather than a competator). He does not realise how much Henchard dislikes him.<br /> <br /> Henchard and Lucille's past is shockingly revealed by the seedy underclass of the town. In reaction to the scandal, Lucille dies from an epileptic seizure. Henchard returns to drink. The sailor returns and reuinites with Elizabeth-Jane. Elizabeth-Jane marries Farfrae. When the sailor goes to meet Henchard, he discovers that the man has died quietly, and without a funeral.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> As is typical of Hardy's stories, [[Peripeteia|Peripeteia]], or &quot;the changing of fortunes&quot;, features as a plot device. Whereas one character will decline in status, another will work their way up the social heirarchy. In this case, Henchard is something of a traditional [[Tragedy|Tragic]] hero, unable to escape his fated demise. Meanwhile, Farfrae plays the role of the outsider, catalysing social change and bringing in new ideas. It is he who introduces farming machinary, bringing the industrial revolution to the pastoral county.<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> *[[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> *[[Wessex]]<br /> *[[Industrial Revolution]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/143 Project Gutenbenberg text of ''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']<br /> <br /> [[Category:Literature]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=941965 2011-11-30T22:25:22Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[Far From the Madding Crowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[The Mayor of Casterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[Tess of the D'Urbervilles|''Tess Of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[Jude the Obscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always preferred writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that are regularly featured.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning their negative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html | Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Far_From_the_Madding_Crowd&diff=941964 2011-11-30T22:24:28Z

<p>Maninahat: Created page with &quot;''' ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' ''' is an 1874 English novel by Thomas Hardy. Though it was his fourth novel, it was his first major success, as well as the first to take ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>''' ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' ''' is an 1874 English novel by [[Thomas Hardy]]. Though it was his fourth novel, it was his first major success, as well as the first to take place within his distinctive [[Wessex]] setting. The novel is still widely regarded as a literary classic to this day.<br /> <br /> ==Plot Summary==<br /> <br /> The story takes place in [[Wessex]], a fictional, pastoral county of [[England]]. The protagonist is Gabriel Oak, a modest, rugged, salt-of-the-earth sheep farmer. He is smitten with Bathsheba Everdene, a beautiful, impoverished young lady who has just arrived in the area. He swiftly proposes marriage to her, a proposal which she (rather bluntly) rejects on the account that she does not love him. Later Grabriel's entire flock is destroyed, forcing him to go looking for work. He discovers that Bathsheba has inherited wealth and a substantial farm. He enters her employment as a lowly farm hand. <br /> <br /> Bathsheba is delighted with both her newly found authority and sensation she causes wherever she goes. The only person she does not make an obvious impression on is William Boldwood, a stony faced, wealthy farmer. On [[Valentine's Day]], she teases Boldwood with a Valentine's card. Boldwood misinterprets the card as proof of Bathsheba's true love for him. He quickly becomes obsessed with her, and yearns for her affection. Like Gabriel, he proposes to the young lady, and like Gabriel, his offer is dismissed. Gabriel protests to Bathsheba about her thoughtlessness. She fires him in retaliation, though it isn't long before she is forced to re-employ him, due to the fact that he is the only farmer capable of curing the sheep bloat that threatens her livestock.<br /> <br /> During a night time journey, Bathsheba has a chance encounter with Sergeant Francis Troy, a dashing, handsome rogue. Though initially disliking the Sergeant, she quickly falls for his natural charm. The two elope, and on their eventual return, it is revealed that they have gotten married. Bathsheba discovers Troy is a cruel husband and a chronic gambler. He squanders her wealth, and she suspects that he has affections for another woman. The other woman is Fanny Robin, a poor, ex-lover of Troy. They were originally to be married, however Troy abandoned her when she mistakenly travelled to the wrong church on the day of their wedding. Now heavily pregnant, and with ailing health, Fanny attempts to make amends with Troy. She tragically dies during childbirth, alone in a hay farm. When Troy discovers the death, he proclaims his love for Fanny and leaves the farm. His clothes are later found discarded on a beach, and it is assumed he has committed suicide.<br /> <br /> With Troy gone, Boldwood once again proposes to Bathsheba. Eventually, after much pleading, she agrees that after a period of six years, she will be prepared to marry him. He accepts this proviso. Troy, however, is not dead. After his disappearance, he joined a circus act, disguising his identity to the locals. When he discovers that Bathsheba and Boldwood has arranged to remarry, he drops his cover and interrupts a party being held by Boldwood. Bathsheba is astonished by his return. Boldwood, furious at the thought of losing Bathsheba, shoots Troy dead on the spot. Boldwood is consequently sentenced to death, though later his sentence is reduced to life imprisonment. Troy is buried in the same grave as Fanny.<br /> <br /> Bathsheba, sadder and wiser, discovers that her oldest and closest friend Gabriel is planning to emigrate to America. Realising how much she has come to depend on him for emotional and physical support, she demands to know why. In an intimate scene, he reveals that he did not wish to face any more ridicule for continuing to love her. He asks her to marry him one more time and she accepts. The two have a modest but happy and secure marriage.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> As is common throughout Hardy's works, there is a recurring themes of [[Class]] and luck. Characters fortunes will quickly change, resulting in a sudden switching of class status. One day, Gabriel is a sheep farmer with good prospects, the next, he is unemployed and without a penny. Bathsheba goes from impoverished to wealthy in as much time. These changes in fortune have a huge influence on the social compatibility of characters, and the determining of the &quot;appropriateness&quot; of their relationships.<br /> <br /> Another prevalent theme is unrequited love. With it come a whole host of fierce passions and emotions, driving men to desperation, violence and other selfish acts. Bathsheba's male suitors tend to disregard her interests, and as such, fall foul of her sense of independence. It is only when a mutual sense of affection and respect is established, that Bathsheba and Gabriel can finally marry.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> <br /> *[[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> <br /> *[[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27 ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' at Project Gutenburg]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=941963 2011-11-30T22:23:52Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[Far From the Madding Crowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always preferred writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that are regularly featured.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning their negative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html | Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_PZ_Myers,_is_your_wife_an_atheist%3F&diff=941696 2011-11-30T02:51:14Z

<p>Maninahat: /* Really? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{delete}} Bad taste [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:24, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Really? ==<br /> <br /> Is this what passes for intellectual discussion on this site? --[[User:Mentoc|Mentoc]] 17:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :It's an &quot;Essay:&quot;. On any other site, it would pass for &quot;Fun:&quot; or &quot;Parody:&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::No, Mentoc, but it is all &quot;Conservative&quot; has done for the year I have been here. It is not fun or parody. It is more of &quot;Conservative's&quot; hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and &quot;Conservative&quot; will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against atheism, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent atheists having religious partners suggests that atheists and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that rather heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that atheists can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands either), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :::::Maninahat, where have I ever said that weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge or that atheism makes people to be bad dancers? Second, many atheists are constantly talking about how atheists are smarter, etc. The atheist [[David Silverman]] has a marketing degree and he is paid to market/sell atheism for the [[American Atheists]] organization. I just think it is humorous that he has been unable to close the sale in terms of his wife being atheist. :) Plus, Wired magazine did say that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males and I do find the issue of the etiology of atheism to be interesting as do others. :) Lastly, PZ Myers and other New Atheists are constantly talking about how religion infects people's minds and makes them stupid or act stupid as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc HERE]. I just think it would be funny if PZ Myers with his supposedly &quot;healthy&quot; and &quot;unstupified&quot; mind was unable to convince his wife that atheism was valid. By the way, has PZ Myers answered the other questions posed yet. :) I don't think so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :::::::Does PZ Myers care what or even know of the questions you posed? I don't think so! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:28, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> Mad Max, thank you for confirming that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLkjbB99HTU&amp;feature=results_video&amp;playnext=1&amp;list=PL598E39244DF6542F Atheism is madness] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :Back to accusing me of being an atheist again? Ho hum. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::::::Conservative, you said in this very essay: <br /> <br /> :::::::::'' &quot;Atheists purport to love science and last time I checked nutritional science, exercise science and medical science have many effective ways to prevent and solve the problem of being overweight. By the way Mr. Myers, why did 3 out of 5 the founders of the New Atheism movement have a problem with obesity (see: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight)? Is their purported love of science merely atheist window dressing?&quot; ''<br /> <br /> ::::::That suggests you attribute their weight problems to a lack of understanding of nutritional, exercise and medical science, which in turn is used to suggest they don't really appreciate science. as for dancing (taken from your essay on &quot;Penn Jillette's Walrus slide&quot;): <br /> <br /> :::::::::'' &quot;When is the last time you heard an atheist dance song? Never. That is because atheism is such a bleak worldview filled with depressed atheists...The closest thing to Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; is atheist Ron Reagan Jr. dancing ballet which is very sad. Of course, the reason why Ron Reagan Jr. loves to engage in ballet dancing so much is because like all atheist men he lacks machismo...at least Penn Jillette knows that real men don't do ballet&quot; ''. <br /> <br /> ::::::Though I'm tempted to go off on a tangent about the philistine views on male ballet, I'll just let those quotes speak for themselves. <br /> <br /> ::::::As for David Silverman, nowhere is it suggested that he was trying to convert his wife in the first place. Though I'm sure many atheists would like to see fewer religious people in the world, most of them will only go so far as to discuss the merits of atheism over religion, rather than actually looking to proselytise. Evidently, Mrs Silverman's beliefs matter little to Mr. Silverman (and vice versa), otherwise they would have probably never married. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 20:47, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Join the dots...? ==<br /> <br /> Conservative, much though I like the things you say (as in our previous Talk page discussions), I do sometimes find a bit hard to follow your logic sometimes. How do you get from atheism to not liking ponies? I don't quite follow all the connections. You gave me a great explanation last time I was puzzled by one of your articles so I'd really appreciate it if you could take the time to set out the steps in your argument here. Anyway, keep the good stuff coming! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:48, 29 November 2011 (EST)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_PZ_Myers,_is_your_wife_an_atheist%3F&diff=941694 2011-11-30T02:49:13Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>{{delete}} Bad taste [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:24, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Really? ==<br /> <br /> Is this what passes for intellectual discussion on this site? --[[User:Mentoc|Mentoc]] 17:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :It's an &quot;Essay:&quot;. On any other site, it would pass for &quot;Fun:&quot; or &quot;Parody:&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::No, Mentoc, but it is all &quot;Conservative&quot; has done for the year I have been here. It is not fun or parody. It is more of &quot;Conservative's&quot; hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and &quot;Conservative&quot; will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against atheism, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent atheists having religious partners suggests that atheists and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that rather heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that atheists can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands either), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :::::Maninahat, where have I ever said that weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge or that atheism makes people to be bad dancers? Second, many atheists are constantly talking about how atheists are smarter, etc. The atheist [[David Silverman]] has a marketing degree and he is paid to market/sell atheism for the [[American Atheists]] organization. I just think it is humorous that he has been unable to close the sale in terms of his wife being atheist. :) Plus, Wired magazine did say that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males and I do find the issue of the etiology of atheism to be interesting as do others. :) Lastly, PZ Myers and other New Atheists are constantly talking about how religion infects people's minds and makes them stupid or act stupid as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc HERE]. I just think it would be funny if PZ Myers with his supposedly &quot;healthy&quot; and &quot;unstupified&quot; mind was unable to convince his wife that atheism was valid. By the way, has PZ Myers answered the other questions posed yet. :) I don't think so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :::::::Does PZ Myers care what or even know of the questions you posed? I don't think so! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:28, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> Mad Max, thank you for confirming that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLkjbB99HTU&amp;feature=results_video&amp;playnext=1&amp;list=PL598E39244DF6542F Atheism is madness] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :Back to accusing me of being an atheist again? Ho hum. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::::::Conservative, you said in this very essay: <br /> <br /> :::::::::'' &quot;Atheists purport to love science and last time I checked nutritional science, exercise science and medical science have many effective ways to prevent and solve the problem of being overweight. By the way Mr. Myers, why did 3 out of 5 the founders of the New Atheism movement have a problem with obesity (see: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight)? Is their purported love of science merely atheist window dressing?&quot; ''<br /> <br /> ::::::That suggests you attribute their weight problems to a lack of understanding of nutritional, exercise and medical science, which in turn suggests they don't really appreciate science. as for dancing (taken from your essay on &quot;Penn Jillete's Walrus slide&quot;): <br /> <br /> :::::::::'' &quot;When is the last time you heard an atheist dance song? Never. That is because atheism is such a bleak worldview filled with depressed atheists...The closest thing to Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; is atheist Ron Reagan Jr. dancing ballet which is very sad. Of course, the reason why Ron Reagan Jr. loves to engage in ballet dancing so much is because like all atheist men he lacks machismo...at least Penn Jillette knows that real men don't do ballet&quot; ''. <br /> <br /> ::::::Though I'm tempted to go off on a tangent about the philistine views on male ballet, I'll just let those quotes speak for themselves. <br /> <br /> ::::::As for David Silverman, nowhere is it suggested that he was trying to convert his wife in the first place. Though I'm sure many atheists would like to see fewer religious people in the world, most of them will only go so far as to discuss the merits of atheism over religion, rather than actually looking to proselytise. Evidently, Mrs Silverman's beliefs matter little to Mr. Silverman (and vice versa), otherwise they would have probably never married. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 20:47, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Join the dots...? ==<br /> <br /> Conservative, much though I like the things you say (as in our previous Talk page discussions), I do sometimes find a bit hard to follow your logic sometimes. How do you get from atheism to not liking ponies? I don't quite follow all the connections. You gave me a great explanation last time I was puzzled by one of your articles so I'd really appreciate it if you could take the time to set out the steps in your argument here. Anyway, keep the good stuff coming! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:48, 29 November 2011 (EST)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_PZ_Myers,_is_your_wife_an_atheist%3F&diff=941528 2011-11-29T19:14:32Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>{{delete}} Bad taste [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:24, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Really? ==<br /> <br /> Is this what passes for intellectual discussion on this site? --[[User:Mentoc|Mentoc]] 17:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :It's an &quot;Essay:&quot;. On any other site, it would pass for &quot;Fun:&quot; or &quot;Parody:&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::No, Mentoc, but it is all &quot;Conservative&quot; has done for the year I have been here. It is not fun or parody. It is more of &quot;Conservative's&quot; hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and &quot;Conservative&quot; will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against atheism, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent atheists having religious partners suggests that atheists and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that rather heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that atheists can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands either), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_PZ_Myers,_is_your_wife_an_atheist%3F&diff=941526 2011-11-29T19:13:01Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>{{delete}} Bad taste [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:24, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Really? ==<br /> <br /> Is this what passes for intellectual discussion on this site? --[[User:Mentoc|Mentoc]] 17:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> :It's an &quot;Essay:&quot;. On any other site, it would pass for &quot;Fun:&quot; or &quot;Parody:&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::No, Mentoc, but it is all &quot;Conservative&quot; has done for the year I have been here. It is not fun or parody. It is more of &quot;Conservative's&quot; hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and &quot;Conservative&quot; will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)<br /> ::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against athiesm, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent athiests having religious partners suggests that athiests and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that athiests can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=FarFromTheMaddingCrowd&diff=939319 2011-11-22T00:56:51Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>''' ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' ''' is an 1874 English novel by [[Thomas Hardy]]. Though it was his fourth novel, it was his first major success, as well as the first to take place within his distinctive [[Wessex]] setting. The novel is still widely regarded as a literary classic to this day.<br /> <br /> ==Plot Summary==<br /> <br /> The story takes place in [[Wessex]], a fictional, pastoral county of [[England]]. The protagonist is Gabriel Oak, a modest, rugged, salt-of-the-earth sheep farmer. He is smitten with Bathsheba Everdene, a beautiful, impoverished young lady who has just arrived in the area. He swiftly proposes marriage to her, a proposal which she (rather bluntly) rejects on the account that she does not love him. Later Grabriel's entire flock is destroyed, forcing him to go looking for work. He discovers that Bathsheba has inherited wealth and a substantial farm. He enters her employment as a lowly farm hand. <br /> <br /> Bathsheba is delighted with both her newly found authority and sensation she causes wherever she goes. The only person she does not make an obvious impression on is William Boldwood, a stony faced, wealthy farmer. On [[Valentine's Day]], she teases Boldwood with a Valentine's card. Boldwood misinterprets the card as proof of Bathsheba's true love for him. He quickly becomes obsessed with her, and yearns for her affection. Like Gabriel, he proposes to the young lady, and like Gabriel, his offer is dismissed. Gabriel protests to Bathsheba about her thoughtlessness. She fires him in retaliation, though it isn't long before she is forced to re-employ him, due to the fact that he is the only farmer capable of curing the sheep bloat that threatens her livestock.<br /> <br /> During a night time journey, Bathsheba has a chance encounter with Sergeant Francis Troy, a dashing, handsome rogue. Though initially disliking the Sergeant, she quickly falls for his natural charm. The two elope, and on their eventual return, it is revealed that they have gotten married. Bathsheba discovers Troy is a cruel husband and a chronic gambler. He squanders her wealth, and she suspects that he has affections for another woman. The other woman is Fanny Robin, a poor, ex-lover of Troy. They were originally to be married, however Troy abandoned her when she mistakenly travelled to the wrong church on the day of their wedding. Now heavily pregnant, and with ailing health, Fanny attempts to make amends with Troy. She tragically dies during childbirth, alone in a hay farm. When Troy discovers the death, he proclaims his love for Fanny and leaves the farm. His clothes are later found discarded on a beach, and it is assumed he has committed suicide.<br /> <br /> With Troy gone, Boldwood once again proposes to Bathsheba. Eventually, after much pleading, she agrees that after a period of six years, she will be prepared to marry him. He accepts this proviso. Troy, however, is not dead. After his disappearance, he joined a circus act, disguising his identity to the locals. When he discovers that Bathsheba and Boldwood has arranged to remarry, he drops his cover and interrupts a party being held by Boldwood. Bathsheba is astonished by his return. Boldwood, furious at the thought of losing Bathsheba, shoots Troy dead on the spot. Boldwood is consequently sentenced to death, though later his sentence is reduced to life imprisonment. Troy is buried in the same grave as Fanny.<br /> <br /> Bathsheba, sadder and wiser, discovers that her oldest and closest friend Gabriel is planning to emigrate to America. Realising how much she has come to depend on him for emotional and physical support, she demands to know why. In an intimate scene, he reveals that he did not wish to face any more ridicule for continuing to love her. He asks her to marry him one more time and she accepts. The two have a modest but happy and secure marriage.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> As is common throughout Hardy's works, there is a recurring themes of [[Class]] and luck. Characters fortunes will quickly change, resulting in a sudden switching of class status. One day, Gabriel is a sheep farmer with good prospects, the next, he is unemployed and without a penny. Bathsheba goes from impoverished to wealthy in as much time. These changes in fortune have a huge influence on the social compatibility of characters, and the determining of the &quot;appropriateness&quot; of their relationships.<br /> <br /> Another prevalent theme is unrequited love. With it come a whole host of fierce passions and emotions, driving men to desperation, violence and other selfish acts. Bathsheba's male suitors tend to disregard her interests, and as such, fall foul of her sense of independence. It is only when a mutual sense of affection and respect is established, that Bathsheba and Gabriel can finally marry.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> <br /> *[[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> <br /> *[[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27 ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' at Project Gutenburg]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=FarFromTheMaddingCrowd&diff=939318 2011-11-22T00:56:04Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>''' ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' ''' is an 1874 English novel by [[Thomas Hardy]]. Though it was his fourth novel, it was his first major success, as well as the first to take place within his distinctive [[Wessex]] setting. The novel is still widely regarded as a literary classic to this day.<br /> <br /> ==Plot Summary==<br /> <br /> The story takes place in [[Wessex]], a fictional, pastoral county of [[England]]. The protagonist is Gabriel Oak, a modest, rugged, salt-of-the-earth sheep farmer. He is smitten with Bathsheba Everdene, a beautiful, impoverished young lady who has just arrived in the area. He swiftly proposes marriage to her, a proposal which she (rather bluntly) rejects on the account that she does not love him. Later Grabriel's entire flock is destroyed, forcing him to go looking for work. He discovers that Bathsheba has inherited wealth and a substantial farm. He enters her employment as a lowly farm hand. <br /> <br /> Bathsheba is delighted with both her newly found authority and sensation she causes wherever she goes. The only person she does not make an obvious impression on is William Boldwood, a stony faced, wealthy farmer. On [[Valentine's Day]], she teases Boldwood with a Valentine's card. Boldwood misinterprets the card as proof of Bathsheba's true love for him. He quickly becomes obsessed with her, and yearns for her affection. Like Gabriel, he proposes to the young lady, and like Gabriel, his offer is dismissed. Gabriel protests to Bathsheba about her thoughtlessness. She fires him in retaliation, though it isn't long before she is forced to re-employ him, due to the fact that he is the only farmer capable of curing the sheep bloat that threatens her livestock.<br /> <br /> During a night time journey, Bathsheba has a chance encounter with Sergeant Francis Troy, a dashing, handsome rogue. Though initially disliking the Sergeant, she quickly falls for his natural charm. The two elope, and on their eventual return, it is revealed that they have gotten married. Bathsheba discovers Troy is a cruel husband and a chronic gambler. He squanders her wealth, and she suspects that he has affections for another woman. The other woman is Fanny Robin, a poor, ex-lover of Troy. They were originally to be married, however Troy abandoned her when she mistakenly travelled to the wrong church on the day of their wedding. Now heavily pregnant, and with ailing health, Fanny attempts to make amends with Troy. She tragically dies during childbirth, alone in a hay farm. When Troy discovers the death, he proclaims his love for Fanny and leaves the farm. His clothes are later found discarded on a beach, and it is assumed he has committed suicide.<br /> <br /> With Troy gone, Boldwood once again proposes to Bathsheba. Eventually, after much pleading, she agrees that after a period of six years, she will be prepared to marry him. He accepts this proviso. Troy, however, is not dead. After his disappearance, he joined a circus act, disguising his identity to the locals. When he discovers that Bathsheba and Boldwood has arranged to remarry, he drops his cover and interrupts a party being held by Boldwood. Bathsheba is astonished by his return. Boldwood, furious at the thought of losing Bathsheba, shoots Troy dead on the spot. Boldwood is consequently sentenced to death, though later his sentence is reduced to life imprisonment. Troy is buried in the same grave as Fanny.<br /> <br /> Bathsheba, sadder and wiser, discovers that her oldest and closest friend Gabriel is planning to emigrate to America. Realising how much she has come to depend on him for emotional and physical support, she demands to know why. In an intimate scene, he reveals that he did not wish to face any more ridicule for continuing to love her. He asks her to marry him one more time and she accepts. The two have a modest but happy and secure marriage.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> As is common throughout Hardy's works, there is a recurring themes of [[Social class]] and luck. Characters fortunes will quickly change, resulting in a sudden switching of class status. One day, Gabriel is a sheep farmer with good prospects, the next, he is unemployed and without a penny. Bathsheba goes from impoverished to wealthy in as much time. These changes in fortune have a huge influence on the social compatibility of characters, and the determining of the &quot;appropriateness&quot; of their relationships.<br /> <br /> Another prevalent theme is unrequited love. With it come a whole host of fierce passions and emotions, driving men to desperation, violence and other selfish acts. Bathsheba's male suitors tend to disregard her interests, and as such, fall foul of her sense of independence. It is only when a mutual sense of affection and respect is established, that Bathsheba and Gabriel can finally marry.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> <br /> *[[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> <br /> *[[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27 ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' at Project Gutenburg]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=FarFromTheMaddingCrowd&diff=939317 2011-11-22T00:54:09Z

<p>Maninahat: A page</p> <hr /> <div>''' ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' ''' is an 1874 English novel by [[Thomas Hardy]]. Though it was his fourth novel, it was his first major success, as well as the first to take place within his distinctive [[Wessex]] setting. The novel is still widely regarded as a literary classic to this day.<br /> <br /> ==Plot Summary==<br /> <br /> The story takes place in [[Wessex]], a fictional, pastoral county of [[England]]. The protagonist is Gabriel Oak, a modest, rugged, salt-of-the-earth sheep farmer. He is smitten with Bathsheba Everdene, a beautiful, impoverished young lady who has just arrived in the area. He swiftly proposes marriage to her, a proposal which she (rather bluntly) rejects on the account that she does not love him. Later Grabriel's entire flock is destroyed, forcing him to go looking for work. He discovers that Bathsheba has inherited wealth and a substantial farm. He enters her employment as a lowly farm hand. <br /> <br /> Bathsheba is delighted with both her newly found authority and sensation she causes wherever she goes. The only person she does not make an obvious impression on is William Boldwood, a stony faced, wealthy farmer. On [[Valentine's Day]], she teases Boldwood with a Valentine's card. Boldwood misinterprets the card as proof of Bathsheba's true love for him. He quickly becomes obsessed with her, and yearns for her affection. Like Gabriel, he proposes to the young lady, and like Gabriel, his offer is dismissed. Gabriel protests to Bathsheba about her thoughtlessness. She fires him in retaliation, though it isn't long before she is forced to re-employ him, due to the fact that he is the only farmer capable of curing the sheep bloat that threatens her livestock.<br /> <br /> During a night time journey, Bathsheba has a chance encounter with Sergeant Francis Troy, a dashing, handsome rogue. Though initially disliking the Sergeant, she quickly falls for his natural charm. The two elope, and on their eventual return, it is revealed that they have gotten married. Bathsheba discovers Troy is a cruel husband and a chronic gambler. He squanders her wealth, and she suspects that he has affections for another woman. The other woman is Fanny Robin, a poor, ex-lover of Troy. They were originally to be married, however Troy abandoned her when she mistakenly travelled to the wrong church on the day of their wedding. Now heavily pregnant, and with ailing health, Fanny attempts to make amends with Troy. She tragically dies during childbirth, alone in a hay farm. When Troy discovers the death, he proclaims his love for Fanny and leaves the farm. His clothes are later found discarded on a beach, and it is assumed he has committed suicide.<br /> <br /> With Troy gone, Boldwood once again proposes to Bathsheba. Eventually, after much pleading, she agrees that after a period of six years, she will be prepared to marry him. He accepts this proviso. Troy, however, is not dead. After his disappearance, he joined a circus act, disguising his identity to the locals. When he discovers that Bathsheba and Boldwood has arranged to remarry, he drops his cover and interrupts a party being held by Boldwood. Bathsheba is astonished by his return. Boldwood, furious at the thought of losing Bathsheba, shoots Troy dead on the spot. Boldwood is consequently sentenced to death, though later his sentence is reduced to life imprisonment. Troy is buried in the same grave as Fanny.<br /> <br /> Bathsheba, sadder and wiser, discovers that her oldest and closest friend Gabriel is planning to emigrate to America. Realising how much she has come to depend on him for emotional and physical support, she demands to know why. In an intimate scene, he reveals that he did not wish to face any more ridicule for continuing to love her. He asks her to marry him one more time and she accepts. The two have a modest but happy and secure marriage.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> As is common throughout Hardy's works, there is a recurring themes of [[Social class]] and luck. Characters fortunes will quickly change, resulting in a sudden switching of class status. One day, Gabriel is a sheep farmer with good prospects, the next, he is unemployed and without a penny. Bathsheba goes from impoverished to wealthy in as much time. These changes in fortune have a huge influence on the social compatibility of characters, and the determining of the &quot;appropriateness&quot; of their relationships.<br /> <br /> Another prevalent theme is unrequited love. With it come a whole host of fierce passions and emotions, driving men to desperation, violence and other selfish acts.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> <br /> *[[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> <br /> *[[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27 ''Far From the Madding Crowd'' at Project Gutenburg]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936675 2011-11-13T19:27:26Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always preferred writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that are regularly featured.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning their negative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html | Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Author&diff=936648 2011-11-13T17:08:04Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''author''' is someone who [[writes]] a piece of [[literature]] such as might appear in a [[book]] or a [[magazine]] article.<br /> <br /> The term author is usually used with works that have been mass produced either in written or electronic form and have the capability to be widely read and distributed.<br /> <br /> == Authors and Books ==<br /> <br /> There are several lists of &quot;Top authors&quot; or &quot;Best seller&quot; books. Some include:<br /> [[Image:Repin LeoTolstoy.jpg|thumb|Portrait of Leo Tolstoy by Ilya Yefimovich Repin]]<br /> * ''The Ugly Duckling'' by [[Hans Christian Andersen]]<br /> * ''Pride and Prejudice'' by [[Jane Austen]] <br /> * ''The Treasury of Oz'' by [[L. Frank Baum]] <br /> * ''Myths and Legends of Ancient Greece and Rome'' by E. M. Berens <br /> * ''Labyrinths'' by [[Jorge Luis Borges]]<br /> * ''The Da Vinci Code'' by [[Dan Brown]]<br /> * ''Miffy'' by [[Dick Bruna]]<br /> * ''Answered Prayers'' by [[Truman Capote]]<br /> * ''[[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]'' by [[Lewis Carroll]]<br /> * ''The Plague'' by [[Albert Camus]]<br /> * ''[[Don Quixote]]'' by [[Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra]] <br /> * ''The Stories of Anton Chekhov'' by [[Anton Chekhov]]<br /> * ''Father Brown'' by [[G.K. Chesterton]]<br /> * ''And Then There Were None'' by [[Agatha Christie]]<br /> * ''The Sum of All Fears'' by [[Tom Clancy]]<br /> * ''Shōgun'' by [[James Clavell]]<br /> * ''The Alchemist'' by [[Paulo Coelho]]<br /> * ''An Outcast of the Islands'' by [[Joseph Conrad]]<br /> * ''House of Leaves'' by Mark Z. Danielewski<br /> * ''[[A Tale of Two Cities]]'' by [[Charles Dickens]]<br /> * ''The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson'' <br /> * ''[[The Brothers Karamazov]]'' by [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]<br /> * ''The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes'' by Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] <br /> * ''[[Middlemarch]]'' by [[George Eliot]] <br /> * ''The Praise of Folly'' by [[Erasmus|Desiderius Erasmus]]<br /> * ''[[The Sound and the Fury]]'' by [[William Faulkner]]<br /> * ''[[The Great Gatsby]]'' by [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]] <br /> * ''Madame Bovary'' by [[Gustave Flaubert]]<br /> * ''The Death of Artemio Cruz'' by [[Carlos Fuentes]]<br /> [[Image:Goethe Y.jpg|thumb|J. W. von Goethe (1749 - 1832)]]<br /> * ''[[The Sorrows of Young Werther]]'' by [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]<br /> * ''Don Juan'' by [[George Gordon, Lord Byron]] &lt;!--May be alphabetized wrong--&gt;<br /> * ''The Big Sky'' by A. B. Guthrie, Jr.<br /> * ''A Farewell to Arms'' by [[Ernest Hemingway]]<br /> * ''[[Iliad|The Iliad]]'' by [[Homer]]<br /> * ''[[The Hunchback of Notre Dame]]'' by [[Victor Hugo]]<br /> * ''The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'' by [[Washington Irving]]<br /> * ''The Turn of The Screw'' by [[Henry James]]<br /> * ''Ulysses'' by [[James Joyce]] <br /> * ''The Stand'' by [[Stephen King]]<br /> * ''The Jungle Books'' by [[Rudyard Kipling]]<br /> * ''Guin Saga'' by [[Kaoru Kurimoto]]<br /> * ''Tess of the D'Urbervilles'' by [[Thomas Hardy]]<br /> * ''Independent People'' by Halldor Laxness<br /> * ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'' by [[C.S. Lewis]]<br /> * ''The Prince'' by [[Niccolo Machiavelli]]<br /> * ''Death in Venice'' by [[Thomas Mann]]<br /> * ''Meditations'' by Marcus Aurelius <br /> * ''One Hundred Years of Solitude'' by [[Gabriel García Márquez]] <br /> * ''Of Human Bondage'' by [[W. Somerset Maugham]] <br /> * ''[[Gone with the Wind]]'' by [[Margaret Mitchell]]<br /> * ''Pale Fire'' by [[Vladimir Nabokov]]<br /> * ''Late and Posthumous Poems'' by [[Pablo Neruda]]<br /> * ''U.S.A.'' by [[John Dos Passos]]<br /> * ''The Raven'' by [[Edgar Allan Poe]] &lt;!-- Poem, not a book; should it really be here? --&gt;<br /> * ''In Search of Lost Time'' by [[Marcel Proust]]<br /> * ''The Double Flame'' by [[Octavio Paz]]<br /> * ''The Godfather'' by [[Mario Puzo]]<br /> * ''Wolf Totem'' by Jiang Rong<br /> * ''Pedro Paramo'' by Juan Rulfo<br /> * ''Scaramouche'' by Rafael Sabatini<br /> * ''Le Petit Prince'' by [[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]]<br /> * ''Blindness'' by [[Jose Saramago]]<br /> * ''Ivanhoe'' by [[Walter Scott]]<br /> * ''A Suitable Boy'' by Vikram Seth<br /> * ''[[Hamlet]]'' by [[William Shakespeare]]<br /> * ''The Man Who Loved Children'' by Christina Stead<br /> * ''Perfume'' by [[Patrick Süskind]]<br /> * ''Legend of the Galactic Heroes'' by Yoshiki Tanaka<br /> * ''The Hobbit'' by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]<br /> * ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]<br /> * ''[[Anna Karenina]]'' by [[Leo Tolstoy]]<br /> * ''[[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]'' by [[Mark Twain]]<br /> * ''The Tragic Sense of Life in Men and Peoples'' by [[Miguel de Unamuno]]<br /> * ''[[Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea]]'' by [[Jules Verne]]<br /> * ''The Purpose Driven Life'' by Rick Warren<br /> * ''[[The War of the Worlds]]'' by [[H. G. Wells]] <br /> * ''A Man in Full'' by [[Tom Wolfe]] <br /> * ''Musashi'' by Eiji Yoshikawa<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Professions]]<br /> [[Category:Literature]]<br /> [[Category:Authors]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936647 2011-11-13T17:05:56Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always preferred writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that are regularly featured.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning their negative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html| Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936646 2011-11-13T17:05:40Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always preferred writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that are regularly featured.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning their negative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html| Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936645 2011-11-13T17:04:16Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of The D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always prefered writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that regularly makes an appearance.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning theirnegative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html| Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936644 2011-11-13T17:03:49Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of The D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always prefered writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that regularly makes an appearance.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Though a practising Anglican, Hardy would often question his faith and the church through his novels and poetry. He would often portray representatives of religious institutions negatively, portrayed as dogmatic, callous, and at odds with the kinder, meek faith of the protagonists. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning theirnegative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html| Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> Template Navbox &quot;Liberalism&quot; or &quot;Conservatism&quot;, etc. would be placed at the bottom of the article, just before Category.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936643 2011-11-13T17:01:15Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheD'Urbervilles|''Tess Of The D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always prefered writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that regularly makes an appearance.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Hardy, though an Anglican, would often question his faith through his novels and poetry. Representatives of religious institutions were often cast in a harsh light; portrayed as dogmatic and callous throughout the novels. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning theirnegative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> * [[Author]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/hardy_thomas_bibliography.html| Thomas Hardy's Bibliography]<br /> <br /> Template Navbox &quot;Liberalism&quot; or &quot;Conservatism&quot;, etc. would be placed at the bottom of the article, just before Category.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Literature]]<br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936642 2011-11-13T16:55:23Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge'']], [[TessOfTheDUrbervilles|''Tess of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|''Jude the Obscure'']].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always prefered writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that regularly makes an appearance.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Hardy, though an Anglican, would often question his faith through his novels and poetry. Representatives of religious institutions were often cast in a harsh light; portrayed as dogmatic and callous throughout the novels. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning theirnegative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> Template Navbox &quot;Liberalism&quot; or &quot;Conservatism&quot;, etc. would be placed at the bottom of the article, just before Category.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Hardy&diff=936641 2011-11-13T16:54:28Z

<p>Maninahat: Created page with &quot;'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an English novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of Wessex, and ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Thomas Hardy''' (June 2, 1840 - January 11, 1928) was an [[English]] novelist and poet. Typically, his stories take place in the fictional, pastoral county of [[Wessex]], and feature themes such as tragedy, passion, fortune, death, religion and social status. Wessex first featured in [[FarFromTheMaddingCrowd|''Far From the Madding Crowd'']], his first major literary success. Further literary classics include [[TheMayorOfCasterbridge|''The Mayor of Casterbridge']], [[TessOfTheDUrbervilles|''Tess of the D'Urbervilles'']], and [[JudeTheObscure|Jude the Obscure]].<br /> <br /> Despite becoming a celebrity in his own time, Hardy was disheartened by the negative criticisms of the themes and characters in his novels. Having always prefered writing poetry, he unofficially retired from novel writing to focus on the art up until his death. Hardy's poetry is somewhat more eclectic in tone, often featuring darker humour than seen in his novels. Though more famous for his novels, Hardy's poems have since become greatly respected.<br /> <br /> ==Themes==<br /> <br /> Hardy's novels address a number of social issues of the time. [[Class]] is most prevalent, with characters regularly suffering due to the financial and social restrictions of their specific class. This is most apparent in the &quot;fallen woman&quot; archetypes that regularly makes an appearance.<br /> <br /> The &quot;wheel of fortune&quot; is another recurring Tragic feature. Characters will often transition from a low social position to a higher one, or vice versa. This is often catalysed by the introduction of an &quot;outsider&quot;, who will appear towards the beginning of the story and upset the established social order. This social and technological transition reflects the great changes brought about by the [[Industrial revolution]]. Also, there are the themes of religion. Hardy, though an Anglican, would often question his faith through his novels and poetry. Representatives of religious institutions were often cast in a harsh light; portrayed as dogmatic and callous throughout the novels. This caused some degree of controversy for the time, with religious figures condemning theirnegative portrayal, as well as Hardy's attempts to portray &quot;fallen women&quot; in a sympathetic light. Finally, Hardy was an animal lover, and many of his poems focussed on his beloved cats.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> Template Navbox &quot;Liberalism&quot; or &quot;Conservatism&quot;, etc. would be placed at the bottom of the article, just before Category.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Authors]]<br /> [[Category: Poets]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Hardy, Thomas}}</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=927153 2011-10-12T23:28:43Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''' is a Jacobean revenge [[tragedy]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. Written between 1599-1601, it is perhaps Shakespeare's most famous play, and possibly one of the most famous works written in the English language, being the subject of more essays than any other work. The tale heavily features the themes procrastination, deterioration, incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].<br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> The Ghost - A spirit of the dead King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Claudius - Recently crowned King of Denmark, brother of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Gertrude - Widow of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Hamlet - Prince, son of King Hamlet and Gertrude<br /> <br /> Horatio - Hamlet's life long friend.<br /> <br /> Polonius - Elderly, pompous advisor to the king<br /> <br /> Laertes - Polonius' son<br /> <br /> Ophelia - Polonius' daughter and lover of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Two buffoonish school friends of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Fortinbras - Prince of Norway<br /> <br /> The grave diggers<br /> <br /> Watchmen<br /> <br /> also: Actors, Courtiers, Guards, Norwegian Soldiers etc.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet. Prince Hamlet, son of king Hamlet and Gertrude is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> ==Movie Adaptations==<br /> <br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=927152 2011-10-12T23:26:43Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''' is a Jacobean revenge [[tragedy]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. Written between 1599-1601, it is perhaps Shakespeare's most famous play, and possibly one of the most famous works written in the English language, being the subject of more essays than any other work. The tale heavily features the themes procrastination, deterioration, incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].<br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> The Ghost - A spirit of the dead King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Claudius - Recently crowned King of Denmark, brother of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Gertrude - Widow of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Hamlet - Prince, son of King Hamlet and Gertrude<br /> <br /> Horatio - Hamlet's life long friend.<br /> <br /> Polonius - Elderly, pompous advisor to the king<br /> <br /> Laertes - Polonius' son<br /> <br /> Ophelia - Polonius' daughter and lover of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Two buffoonish school friends of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Fortinbras - Prince of Norway<br /> <br /> The grave diggers<br /> <br /> Watchmen<br /> <br /> also: Actors, Courtiers, Guards, Norwegian Soldiers etc.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet and the father of Prince Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> ==Movie Adaptations==<br /> <br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=925309 2011-10-07T22:23:04Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''' is a Jacobean revenge [[tragedy]] about the Danish Prince Hamlet. Written between 1599-1601, it is perhaps [[William Shakespeare]]'s most famous play, and possibly one of the most famous works written in the English language, being the subject of more essays than any other work. There is some dispute as to Hamlet's origin, with it perhaps being an adaptation of earlier Latin, or Italian, or Germanic tales, including ''&quot;Hamleth&quot;'', or perhaps the alleged ''&quot;Ur-Hamlet&quot;''. The tale heavily features the themes procrastination, deterioration, incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]]. <br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> The Ghost - A spirit of the dead King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Claudius - Recently crowned King of Denmark, brother of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Gertrude - Widow of King Hamlet<br /> <br /> Hamlet - Prince, son of King Hamlet and Gertrude<br /> <br /> Horatio - Hamlet's life long friend.<br /> <br /> Polonius - Elderly, pompous advisor to the king<br /> <br /> Laertes - Polonius' son<br /> <br /> Ophelia - Polonius' daughter and lover of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Two buffoonish school friends of Hamlet<br /> <br /> Fortinbras - Prince of Norway<br /> <br /> The grave diggers<br /> <br /> Watchmen<br /> <br /> also: Actors, Courtiers, Guards, Norwegian Soldiers etc.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet and the father of Prince Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> ==Movie Adaptations==<br /> <br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=925308 2011-10-07T22:21:43Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''' is a Jacobean revenge [[tragedy]] about the Danish Prince Hamlet. Written between 1599-1601, it is perhaps [[William Shakespeare]]'s most famous play, and possibly one of the most famous works written in the English language, being the subject of more essays than any other work. There is some dispute as to Hamlet's origin, with it perhaps being an adaptation of earlier Latin, or Italian, or Germanic tales, including ''&quot;Hamleth&quot;'', or perhaps the alleged ''&quot;Ur-Hamlet&quot;''. The tale heavily features the themes procrastination, deterioration, incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]]. <br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> The Ghost - A spirit of the dead King Hamlet.<br /> Claudius - Recently crowned King of Denmark, brother of King Hamlet.<br /> Gertrude - Widow of King Hamlet<br /> Hamlet - Prince, son of King Hamlet and Gertrude<br /> Horatio - Hamlet's life long friend.<br /> Polonius - Elderly, pompous advisor to the king<br /> Laertes - Polonius' son<br /> Ophelia - Polonius' daughter and lover of Hamlet<br /> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Two buffoonish school friends of Hamlet<br /> Fortinbras - Prince of Norway<br /> The grave diggers<br /> Watchmen<br /> also: Actors, Courtiers, Guards, Norwegian Soldiers etc.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet and the father of Prince Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> ==Movie Adaptations==<br /> <br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=925307 2011-10-07T22:15:07Z

<p>Maninahat: Added details to introduction, added a character list</p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''' is a Jacobean revenge [[tragedy]] about the Danish Prince Hamlet. Written between 1599-1601, it is perhaps [[William Shakespeare]]'s most famous play, and possibly one of the most famous works written in the English language, being the subject of more essays than any other work. The tale heavily features the themes procrastination, deterioration, incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].<br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> The Ghost - A spirit of the dead King Hamlet.<br /> Claudius - Recently crowned King of Denmark, brother of King Hamlet.<br /> Gertrude - Widow of King Hamlet<br /> Hamlet - Prince, son of King Hamlet and Gertrude<br /> Horatio - Hamlet's life long friend.<br /> Polonius - Elderly, pompous advisor to the king<br /> Laertes - Polonius' son<br /> Ophelia - Polonius' daughter and lover of Hamlet<br /> Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Two buffoonish school friends of Hamlet<br /> Fortinbras - Prince of Norway<br /> The grave diggers<br /> Watchmen<br /> also: Actors, Courtiers, Guards, Norwegian Soldiers etc.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet and the father of Prince Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Movies==<br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=925306 2011-10-07T22:04:04Z

<p>Maninahat: Have expanded upon the synopsis, adding names and an ending.</p> <hr /> <div>'''''Hamlet''''', perhaps [[William Shakespeare]]'s most famous play, was written {{years ago|1600}} years ago. It is a [[tragedy]] about incest, [[revenge]], [[madness]], [[homicide]], and [[suicide]].<br /> <br /> The title character is the son of a murdered king, who appears in ghostly form to the young prince.&lt;ref&gt;[[Harold Bloom]]: &quot;When we first encounter him, Hamlet is a university student who is not being permitted to return to his studies. He does not appear to be more than twenty years old, yet in Act V he is revealed to be at least thirty, after a passage of a few weeks at most.&quot; [http://www.princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html]&lt;/ref&gt; The dead king accuses his brother, Claudius, (young Hamlet's uncle) of murdering him. <br /> <br /> As Prince Hamlet investigates, he faces a conspiracy involving schoolmates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; [[Ophelia]]'s father [[Polonius]]; and even his own mother. <br /> <br /> Hamlet's quest to avenge his father's murder destroys his own life and the lives of everyone close to him but a visiting college friend (Horatio). <br /> <br /> Under normal circumstances, it would be [[treason]]ous to make any accusations of the king. It is only because of Hamlet's position as the son of the Queen that he is able to voice his suspicions. That, and his pretense of being &quot;mad with grief&quot; over his father's recent death. He betrays his suspicions in front of his mother and (step)father in an angry tirade and is watched closely from then on. <br /> <br /> Polonious, the king's adviser, thinks that Hamlet is behaving strangely out of his love for Ophelia and orders her to break off her relationship with Hamlet. <br /> <br /> Hamlet wonders why his mother would betray her husband and marry his brother only two months after his death. He grows indecisive (&quot;To be or not to be&quot;) and unsure about the ghost's story. He comes up with an idea to stage a pantomime play to confirm or deny the story.<br /> [[Image:Ophelia 1894.jpg|right|thumb|''Ophelia'' by John William Waterhouse.]]<br /> :&quot;The play's the thing / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot;<br /> <br /> During the play, he makes a nuisance of himself, commenting on the action and teasing Ophelia with [[double-entendre]]s, but he gets confirmation of the ghost's accusation when the King sees a scene showing a man poisoned in his his sleep and clasping the widow in an adulterous embrace. The King orders them to stop the play and storms out. <br /> <br /> Hamlet confronts his mother (Queen Gertrude) in her bedroom, not knowing that the king's adviser Polonius is hidden behind a wall hanging. Hearing a movement, Hamlet kills the hidden spy; when he discovers that it is his girl friend's father, he hides the body in another part of the castle. <br /> <br /> Ophelia, already upset over the sudden end of the courtship, becomes distraught after learning Hamlet has killed her father and drowns herself.<br /> <br /> Hamlet's only friend in the play, his school friend [[Horatio]], is the only major character who is not killed. When Hamlet is behaving strangely (it might not be an act), he tells Horatio, &quot;I am only mad north by northwest&quot; and &quot;There's a method to my madness&quot;. <br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The play begins with the palace watchmen being terrified by the appearance of a ghost of the old King Hamlet. Meanwhile, in the court, King Claudius (King Hamlet's brother) proclaims his wedding to Gertrude, the widow of King Hamlet and the father of Prince Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is melancholy at both his father's death, and at his mother's &quot;incest&quot; with Claudius. Laertes, son of the king's adviser Polonius, is leaving on a trip. Laertes tells his sister Ophelia to not get too involved with Prince Hamlet; so does her father, so she promises to break off the relationship. <br /> <br /> Horatio tells Hamlet of the ghost sightings, and Hamlet heads out to investigate the appearances. Hamlet chases the ghost into the woods. Now alone, the ghost tells of how he is the spirit of old King Hamlet, tortured in purgatory and awaiting vengeance. He claims he was murdered by Claudius as he lay asleep in the gardens, the brother pouring poison into the King's ear. The ghost commands Hamlet to kill Claudius (but not harm Gertrude) to free him from his suffering. Hamlet is eventually found, alone, by his friends. Hamlet does not tell the others what he has heard.<br /> <br /> Whilst Polonius dispatches a servant to spy on Laertes, Ophelia tells Polonius that Hamlet burst into her room and scared her.<br /> The King and Queen send two school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet. They disagree on why Hamlet is acting strangely. The Queen says it is because of their over-hasty marriage, but the king prefers the story that Hamlet is lovesick over Ophelia, which is what Polonius thinks. They hide while Hamlet, now apparently insane, enters and begins insulting Polonius. The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come in and question him, but Hamlet is suspicious and reveals nothing. <br /> <br /> A troupe of actors enter, and Hamlet has Polonius hire them. Hamlet commissions the group to enact a specific routine, his reasons for which are presented in the famous &quot;To be or not to be&quot; soliloquy. Hamlet talks of about his internal struggles: he hates his uncle, he's angry at his mother but he's worried that the ghost might be a demon sent to trick him. Hamlet has the idea of using a play to provoke the King, with the troupe acting out a play who's plot strongly resembles King Hamlet's alleged murder. The plan works brilliantly, as the king is forced to end the play out of his overwhelming grief. Hamlet loudly celebrates his triumph in front of the King and Queen. After his celebration, Hamlet goes to kill the King in one of his personal chambers. <br /> <br /> Hamlet finds the King praying, and decides not to kill him then, lest his sins be forgiven and he be sent to heaven. Hamlet instead goes to his mother's quarters. The Queen reprimands him for celebrating at the time of the King's grief. Hamlet counters by unleashing his pent up anger at his mother's incest and lack of sadness for the death of Hamlet's father. When a noise comes from behind a tapestry, Hamlet sticks his sword through, thinking he has stabbed Claudius. Instead, he discovers that he has killed Polonius, who was eavesdropping. Hamlet drags the corpse from the scene.<br /> <br /> Claudius is infuriated by the murder of Polonius and demands Hamlet should show them where he hid the body, but the (seemingly) demented Hamlet refuses. Hamlet is exiled to England, along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius provides the two with a letter to the English King, stating that Hamlet must be executed on arrival. Meanwhile, Ophelia has descended into total madness over the death of her father. Laertes returns to discover the shocking state of his sister, and demands revenge. <br /> <br /> Time has moved on, and Hamlet is back in Denmark. Times are unstable, and an invasion, lead by Fortinbras is imminent. He greets Horatio, and explains how his voyage was interrupted by pirates. Whilst fighting them off, he discovered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s letter. He replaced it with an alternative letter which stated the two should be executed on arrival instead. He then made his way back to Denmark in secret. As they chat, they oversee two drunken grave diggers in a freshly dug plot. Hamlet exchanges jokes with the two, whilst they exhume the remains of the old court Jester, Yorick. Hamlet grows nostalgic on seeing the bones of the old entertainer (&quot;Alas, poor Yorick / I knew him, Horatio&quot;). Meanwhile, a funeral procession arrives, with Claudius, Gertude and Laertes present. Hamlet discovers the body is that of Ophelia. She drowned, possibly in an act of suicide. Distraught, Hamlet surprises the funeral procession with his presence, and leaps into the grave to embrace her. Laertes, infuriated that Hamlet is disrupting his sister's burial, brawls with him. The two men are forced apart, and Claudius proclaims that the two should settle their dispute properly; by duel. <br /> <br /> On the day of the duel, Claudius plots with Laertes to rig the fight. He provides Laertes with a poisoned foil, and places more poison in Hamlet's drink. The two men begin to duel. Hamlet proves to be the superior swordsman, but is eventually slashed by Laertes in between boughts. Hamlet loses his temper and scuffles with Laertes. The two swords are swapped in the confusion, and Hamlet pierces Laertes with the poison blade. Gertrude, to Claudius's horror, drinks from Hamlet's goblet, and is poisoned. Laertes, now dying, reveals Claudius' scheme. Gertrude dies. Hamlet flies into a rage, stabs claudius, and forces him to drink the last of the poison. Claudius dies. Hamlet dies from his wound. Horatio is the only one left. Fortinbras and his invasion force enter the court and see a pile of bodies before them. A messenger proclaims that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras proclaims himself ruler, offering a possible glimmer of future stability.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Movies==<br /> Major film versions of the play have starred [[Laurence Olivier]], [[Mel Gibson]], and [[Kenneth Branagh]]. (While both Olivier and Branagh directed and starred in their versions, [[Franco Zeffirelli]] directed the one with Gibson.)<br /> <br /> Laurence Olivier's black-and-white 1948 film won four Oscars; best actor in a leading role, best art-set direction, best costume design and best picture. Olivier's performance was considered an unapproachable ideal and remains so. It co-starred Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Jean Simmons as Ophelia.<br /> <br /> Mel Gibson's 1990 version uses modernized English and attempts to portray a grittier, tougher Hamlet. The film was nominated for two Oscars. It co-starred Alan Bates as Claudius, Glenn Close as Gerturde, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. <br /> <br /> Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version is 4 hours long as it includes the complete, unabridged text of the whole play. The film was nominated for four Oscars. It co-starred Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Julie Christie as Gertrude, Michael Maloney as Laertes and Kate Winslet as Ophelia. It also included well-known actors in cameo roles such as [[Charlton Heston]], John Gielgud, [[Billy Crystal]] and Robin Williams. <br /> <br /> The 2000 version with [[Ethan Hawke]] as a believably young Hamlet is set entirely in New York City, with Denmark a corporation. Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia, and [[Bill Murray]] is pitch perfect&lt;ref&gt; &quot;This ''Hamlet's'' effectiveness rests on an astonishing number of pitch-perfect choices, founded in Almereyda's instincts and those of the performers, many of which have the feel of being completely spontaneous. [http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2000/05/12/hamlet/index1.html Salon review]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> as the king's tragically inept advisor Polonious.<br /> <br /> The [[BBC|British Broadcasting Corporation]] also filmed a version for television with Derek Jacobi in the title role.<br /> <br /> While [[opera]]s based on Shakespeare are quite common, there is only one operatic adaptation of ''Hamlet'', by French composer Ambroise Thomas in 1868.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Shakespeare's ''Hamlet'' was based on a long narrative tradition, beginning with Saxo Grammaticus' ''Historica Danica'' (1180-1208). His legendary story of Amlethus was adapted by French writer François Belleforest in 1576; this new version of the story included more dialogue and psychological commentary than the original. By 1589, an English-language Hamlet play was being performed. The author of this Ur-Hamlet is not known, although some evidence points towards Thomas Kyd, author of the prototypical English revenge play, ''[[The Spanish Tragedie]]''. Shakespeare received most of his Hamlet material from this narrative tradition and transformed it into the enduring work known today.&lt;ref&gt;David Bevington, ed., ''The Complete Works of Shakespeare,'' Update 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), A43-A45.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References in Popular Culture==<br /> In the 1960s, playwright Tom Stoppard wrote the play ''Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'', which portrays the action from the viewpoint of Hamlet's schoolfriends and expands their roles.<br /> <br /> The progressive metal band [[Dream Theater]] had their biggest hit in the early 1990s with &quot;Pull Me Under&quot;, a song that referenced ''Hamlet'' throughout. The song has some direct quotations from the play.<br /> <br /> ==Quotes and Lines==<br /> &quot;Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Marcellus, Act I, Scene 4<br /> <br /> &quot;Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Polonius, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;I am but mad by north-north-west.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;To be, or not to be: that is the question. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No more; and by a sleep say we end &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To sleep? perchance to dream. Ay there's the rub; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Must give us pause: there's the respect &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That makes calamity of so long life; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The insolence of office, and the spurns &lt;br /&gt;<br /> That patient merit of the unworthy takes, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> When he himself might his quietus make &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With a bare bodkin? who would those fardels bear, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> To grunt and sweat under a weary life, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> But that the dread of something under death, — &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn &lt;br /&gt;<br /> No traveller returns, — puzzles the will, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And makes us rather bear those ills we have &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Than fly to others we know naught of? &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And thus the native hue of resolution &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> With this regard, their currents turn awry, &lt;br /&gt;<br /> And lose the name of action.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;The lady doth protest too much, methinks.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Gertrude, Act III, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1<br /> <br /> &quot;O, I die, Horatio.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;The rest is silence.&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Hamlet, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> &quot;Good night, sweet prince; and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!&quot; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> -Horatio, Act V, Scene 2<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.sullivanet.com/misc/hamlet/haminto.htm Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMcqnRwhW8&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=20048A7C541C941C&amp;index=11 Star Trek: The Conscience of the King] - a [[Star Trek]] episode<br /> *Open Source Shakespeare - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=hamlet]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]<br /> [[Category:Ghost Stories]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Titus_Andronicus&diff=893546 2011-07-26T16:27:33Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Titus Andronicus''''' is a [[tragedy|tragic]] [[play]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. This play was probably Shakespeare's earliest tragedy, written in approximately 1591. This is supported by the weakness of the play compared to Shakespeare's later works. The play has some notoriety for its portrayal of revenge, violence and gore. Though popular with Elizabethan audiences, the levels of violence were considered so extreme that scholars of the 20th century commonly denied or disputed Shakespeare's authorship. More recently, it is now generally accepted that Shakespeare wrote ''Titus Andronicus''.<br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The Emperor of Rome has died shortly before the plot takes place. The story begins with his two sons, Saturninus and Bassianus, arguing over who will take his place as ruler. Their squabbling is interrupted by the arrival of General Titus Andronicus, who has just completed a successful military campaign against the Goths. With him are the prisoners; Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and her Moor servant, Aaron. Despite claiming victory, the conflict has cost Titus several of his sons. To repay the loss, he orders the sacrifice of Tamora's eldest son. Tamora and her remaining sons vow revenge. <br /> <br /> Though the public wish for Titus to take the role as Emperor, Titus refuses the position and allows Saturninus to take over. Saturninus declares his wish to marry Titus' daughter Lavinia, however Lavinia is already betrothed to Bassianus. Titus' sons intervene on Lavinia's behalf, but this only serves to infuriate Titus. He accuses his sons and daughter of treason, and in the ensuing scuffle, murders his own son Mutius. Emperor Saturninus is shocked by the display, and scorns the Andronicus family. He chooses to marry Queen Tamora instead. Queen Tamora convinces Saturninus to pardon his brother and the Andronicus family, thus securing them for her future schemes of revenge.<br /> <br /> During a hunt in the woods, Aaron convinces Tamora's two remaining sons to murder Bassianus and rape Lavinia. They do so, cutting off Lavinia's hands and tongue to prevent her from exposing the truth. Aaron uses a forged letter to convince Saturninus that it was Titus's sons who murdered Basssianus. The destitute Saturninus responds by ordering the execution of the sons Martius and Quintus. News of the execution, reaches the Titus family. Titus breaks down in tears on hearing of the planned execution, and on seeing his mutilated daughter. Aaron convinces Titus that if he were to cut away his hand and send it to Saturninus as tribute, the two sons would be spared. Titus obliges, only to receive the two heads of his sons in exchange for his severed hand.<br /> <br /> Titus vows revenge and orders his remaining son, Lucius, to return to the Goths to raise an army. Lavinia, inspired by a passage from [[Ovid]], takes a stick between her stumps and writes out the names of her attackers in the dirt. Meanwhile, Tamora gives birth to a mixed race son. Aaron, clearly the father, murders the midwife and flees with the baby (who would inevitably be put to death). He is captured by Lucius' army, and to secure the future of his child, Aaron reveals the entire plot against the Andronicus family. <br /> <br /> Titus appears to have gone insane. Hoping to exploit this, Tamora and her two sons adopt disguises and approach Titus. They request Titus to cancel the army's assault on Rome. Titus agrees, and invites everyone to a feast to reconcile. He insists that the two sons remain to help prepare. As soon as Tamora leaves, Titus slits the two son's throats and drains away their blood. <br /> <br /> The next day, at the feast, Titus, Tamora and Saturninus eat a fresh baked pie together. Titus asks Saturninus if it is right for a father to murder his raped daughter. When Saturninus says yes, Titus snaps Lavinia's neck at the table. Titus reveals that she was raped. He then reveals that Tamora's sons were baked into the pie they have just ate. Titus murders the shocked Tamora, Saturninus kills Titus, and finally Lucius kills Saturninus. Lucius is declared Emperor of Rome. He arranges for Saturninus to receive a proper burial, for Tamora's body to be thrown to wild beasts, and for Aaron to be left up to his chest in dirt in the wilderness, to slowly die of thirst. Aaron refuses to repent, his only regret being that he can do no further evil in this life.<br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> Titus Andronicus – renowned Roman general<br /> Lucius – Titus's eldest son<br /> Quintus – Titus's son<br /> Martius – Titus's son<br /> Mutius – Titus's son<br /> Young Lucius – Lucius's son<br /> Lavinia – Titus's daughter<br /> Marcus Andronicus – Titus's brother and tribune to the people of Rome<br /> Publius – Marcus's son<br /> Saturninus – Son of the late Emperor of Rome; declared Emperor<br /> Bassianus – Saturninus's brother and Lavinia's lover<br /> Sempronius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Caius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Valentine – Titus's kinsman<br /> Æmilius – Roman noble<br /> Tamora – Queen of the Goths; later, the Empress of Rome<br /> Demetrius – Tamora's son<br /> Chiron – Tamora's son<br /> Alarbus – Tamora's son; executed early on<br /> Aaron – a Moor servant; secret sexual partner of Tamora<br /> <br /> Tamora's Midwife<br /> Various soldiers, servants etc.<br /> <br /> ===External Links===<br /> Open Source Shakespeare - Titus Andronicus [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=titus]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Plays of Shakespeare]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Titus_Andronicus&diff=893545 2011-07-26T16:26:59Z

<p>Maninahat: Created page with &quot;I'm having a little trouble with the formatting. Some box has appeared around the Character lists that I want removing, but I can't see any formatting or syntax markers to remove...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>I'm having a little trouble with the formatting. Some box has appeared around the Character lists that I want removing, but I can't see any formatting or syntax markers to remove it. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Two_Gentlemen_of_Verona&diff=893543 2011-07-26T16:24:37Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>''The Two Gentlemen of Verona''' is a play written by [[William Shakespeare]] in approximately 1589. The play is one of Shakespeare's first [[romantic comedy|romantic comedies]]. Consequently, ''The Two Gentlemen'' is notable for its number of errors and plot holes, as expected from an inexperienced playwright.<br /> <br /> ====External Links====<br /> Open Source Shakespeare - The Two Gentlemen of Verona [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=twogents]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Plays of Shakespeare]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Titus_Andronicus&diff=893541 2011-07-26T16:23:21Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Titus Andronicus''''' is a [[tragedy|tragic]] [[play]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. This play was probably Shakespeare's earliest tragedy, written in approximately 1591. This is supported by the weakness of the play compared to Shakespeare's later works. The play has some notoriety for its portrayal of revenge, violence and gore. Though popular with Elizabethan audiences, the levels of violence were considered so extreme that scholars of the 20th century commonly denied or disputed Shakespeare's authorship. More recently, it is now generally accepted that Shakespeare wrote ''Titus Andronicus''.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Synopsis==<br /> <br /> The Emperor of Rome has died shortly before the plot takes place. The story begins with his two sons, Saturninus and Bassianus, arguing over who will take his place as ruler. Their squabbling is interrupted by the arrival of General Titus Andronicus, who has just completed a successful military campaign against the Goths. With him are the prisoners; Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and her Moor servant, Aaron. Despite claiming victory, the conflict has cost Titus several of his sons. To repay the loss, he orders the sacrifice of Tamora's eldest son. Tamora and her remaining sons vow revenge. <br /> <br /> Though the public wish for Titus to take the role as Emperor, Titus refuses the position and allows Saturninus to take over. Saturninus declares his wish to marry Titus' daughter Lavinia, however Lavinia is already betrothed to Bassianus. Titus' sons intervene on Lavinia's behalf, but this only serves to infuriate Titus. He accuses his sons and daughter of treason, and in the ensuing scuffle, murders his own son Mutius. Emperor Saturninus is shocked by the display, and scorns the Andronicus family. He chooses to marry Queen Tamora instead. Queen Tamora convinces Saturninus to pardon his brother and the Andronicus family, thus securing them for her future schemes of revenge.<br /> <br /> During a hunt in the woods, Aaron convinces Tamora's two remaining sons to murder Bassianus and rape Lavinia. They do so, cutting off Lavinia's hands and tongue to prevent her from exposing the truth. Aaron uses a forged letter to convince Saturninus that it was Titus's sons who murdered Basssianus. The destitute Saturninus responds by ordering the execution of the sons Martius and Quintus. News of the execution, reaches the Titus family. Titus breaks down in tears on hearing of the planned execution, and on seeing his mutilated daughter. Aaron convinces Titus that if he were to cut away his hand and send it to Saturninus as tribute, the two sons would be spared. Titus obliges, only to receive the two heads of his sons in exchange for his severed hand.<br /> <br /> Titus vows revenge and orders his remaining son, Lucius, to return to the Goths to raise an army. Lavinia, inspired by a passage from [[Ovid]], takes a stick between her stumps and writes out the names of her attackers in the dirt. Meanwhile, Tamora gives birth to a mixed race son. Aaron, clearly the father, murders the midwife and flees with the baby (who would inevitably be put to death). He is captured by Lucius' army, and to secure the future of his child, Aaron reveals the entire plot against the Andronicus family. <br /> <br /> Titus appears to have gone insane. Hoping to exploit this, Tamora and her two sons adopt disguises and approach Titus. They request Titus to cancel the army's assault on Rome. Titus agrees, and invites everyone to a feast to reconcile. He insists that the two sons remain to help prepare. As soon as Tamora leaves, Titus slits the two son's throats and drains away their blood. <br /> <br /> The next day, at the feast, Titus, Tamora and Saturninus eat a fresh baked pie together. Titus asks Saturninus if it is right for a father to murder his raped daughter. When Saturninus says yes, Titus snaps Lavinia's neck at the table. Titus reveals that she was raped. He then reveals that Tamora's sons were baked into the pie they have just ate. Titus murders the shocked Tamora, Saturninus kills Titus, and finally Lucius kills Saturninus. Lucius is declared Emperor of Rome. He arranges for Saturninus to receive a proper burial, for Tamora's body to be thrown to wild beasts, and for Aaron to be left up to his chest in dirt in the wilderness, to slowly die of thirst. Aaron refuses to repent, his only regret being that he can do no further evil in this life.<br /> <br /> ==Characters==<br /> <br /> Titus Andronicus – renowned Roman general<br /> Lucius – Titus's eldest son<br /> Quintus – Titus's son<br /> Martius – Titus's son<br /> Mutius – Titus's son<br /> Young Lucius – Lucius's son<br /> Lavinia – Titus's daughter<br /> Marcus Andronicus – Titus's brother and tribune to the people of Rome<br /> Publius – Marcus's son<br /> Saturninus – Son of the late Emperor of Rome; declared Emperor<br /> Bassianus – Saturninus's brother and Lavinia's lover<br /> Sempronius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Caius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Valentine – Titus's kinsman<br /> Æmilius – Roman noble<br /> Tamora – Queen of the Goths; later, the Empress of Rome<br /> Demetrius – Tamora's son<br /> Chiron – Tamora's son<br /> Alarbus – Tamora's son; executed early on<br /> Aaron – a Moor servant; secret sexual partner of Tamora<br /> <br /> Tamora's Midwife<br /> Various soldiers, servants etc.<br /> <br /> ===External Links===<br /> Open Source Shakespeare - Titus Andronicus [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=titus]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Plays of Shakespeare]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Titus_Andronicus&diff=893539 2011-07-26T16:18:10Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Titus Andronicus''''' is a [[tragedy|tragic]] [[play]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. This play was probably Shakespeare's earliest tragedy, written in approximately 1591. This is supported by the weakness of the play compared to Shakespeare's later works. The play has some notoriety for its portrayal of revenge, violence and gore. Though popular with Elizabethan audiences, the levels of violence were considered so extreme that scholars of the 20th century commonly denied or disputed Shakespeare's authorship. More recently, it is now generally accepted that Shakespeare wrote ''Titus Andronicus''.<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> <br /> Titus Andronicus – renowned Roman general<br /> Lucius – Titus's eldest son<br /> Quintus – Titus's son<br /> Martius – Titus's son<br /> Mutius – Titus's son<br /> Young Lucius – Lucius's son<br /> Lavinia – Titus's daughter<br /> Marcus Andronicus – Titus's brother and tribune to the people of Rome<br /> Publius – Marcus's son<br /> Saturninus – Son of the late Emperor of Rome; declared Emperor<br /> Bassianus – Saturninus's brother and Lavinia's lover<br /> Sempronius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Caius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Valentine – Titus's kinsman<br /> Æmilius – Roman noble<br /> Tamora – Queen of the Goths; later, the Empress of Rome<br /> Demetrius – Tamora's son<br /> Chiron – Tamora's son<br /> Alarbus – Tamora's son; executed early on<br /> Aaron – a Moor servant; secret sexual partner of Tamora<br /> <br /> ==Plot==<br /> <br /> The Emperor of Rome has died shortly before the plot takes place. The story begins with his two sons, Saturninus and Bassianus, arguing over who will take his place as ruler. Their squabbling is interrupted by the arrival of General Titus Andronicus, who has just completed a successful military campaign against the Goths. With him are the prisoners; Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and her Moor servant, Aaron. Despite claiming victory, the conflict has cost Titus several of his sons. To repay the loss, he orders the sacrifice of Tamora's eldest son. Tamora and her remaining sons vow revenge. <br /> <br /> Though the public wish for Titus to take the role as Emperor, Titus refuses the position and allows Saturninus to take over. Saturninus declares his wish to marry Titus' daughter Lavinia, however Lavinia is already betrothed to Bassianus. Titus' sons intervene on Lavinia's behalf, but this only serves to infuriate Titus. He accuses his sons and daughter of treason, and in the ensuing scuffle, murders his own son Mutius. Emperor Saturninus is shocked by the display, and scorns the Andronicus family. He chooses to marry Queen Tamora instead. Queen Tamora convinces Saturninus to pardon his brother and the Andronicus family, thus securing them for her future schemes of revenge.<br /> <br /> During a hunt in the woods, Aaron convinces Tamora's two remaining sons to murder Bassianus and rape Lavinia. They do so, cutting off Lavinia's hands and tongue to prevent her from exposing the truth. Aaron uses a forged letter to convince Saturninus that it was Titus's sons who murdered Basssianus. The destitute Saturninus responds by ordering the execution of the sons Martius and Quintus. News of the execution, reaches the Titus family. Titus breaks down in tears on hearing of the planned execution, and on seeing his mutilated daughter. Aaron convinces Titus that if he were to cut away his hand and send it to Saturninus as tribute, the two sons would be spared. Titus obliges, only to receive the two heads of his sons in exchange for his severed hand.<br /> <br /> Titus vows revenge and orders his remaining son, Lucius, to return to the Goths to raise an army. Lavinia, inspired by a passage from [[Ovid]], takes a stick between her stumps and writes out the names of her attackers in the dirt. Meanwhile, Tamora gives birth to a mixed race son. Aaron, clearly the father, murders the midwife and flees with the baby (who would inevitably be put to death). He is captured by Lucius' army, and to secure the future of his child, Aaron reveals the entire plot against the Andronicus family. <br /> <br /> Titus appears to have gone insane. Hoping to exploit this, Tamora and her two sons adopt disguises and approach Titus. They request Titus to cancel the army's assault on Rome. Titus agrees, and invites everyone to a feast to reconcile. He insists that the two sons remain to help prepare. As soon as Tamora leaves, Titus slits the two son's throats and drains away their blood. <br /> <br /> The next day, at the feast, Titus, Tamora and Saturninus eat a fresh baked pie together. Titus asks Saturninus if it is right for a father to murder his raped daughter. When Saturninus says yes, Titus snaps Lavinia's neck at the table. Titus reveals that she was raped. He then reveals that Tamora's sons were baked into the pie they have just ate. Titus murders the shocked Tamora, Saturninus kills Titus, and finally Lucius kills Saturninus. Lucius is declared Emperor of Rome. He arranges for Saturninus to receive a proper burial, for Tamora's body to be thrown to wild beasts, and for Aaron to be left up to his chest in dirt in the wilderness, to slowly die of thirst. Aaron refuses to repent, his only regret being that he can do no further evil in this life.<br /> <br /> ===External Links===<br /> Open Source Shakespeare - Titus Andronicus [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=titus]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Plays of Shakespeare]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Titus_Andronicus&diff=893537 2011-07-26T16:15:09Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''Titus Andronicus''''' is a [[tragedy|tragic]] [[play]] by [[William Shakespeare]]. This play was probably Shakespeare's earliest tragedy, written in approximately 1591. This is supported by the weakness of the play compared to Shakespeare's later works. The play has some notoriety for its portrayal of revenge, violence and gore. Though popular with Elizabethan audiences, the levels of violence were considered so extreme that scholars of the 20th century commonly denied or disputed Shakespeare's authorship. <br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> <br /> Titus Andronicus – renowned Roman general<br /> Lucius – Titus's eldest son<br /> Quintus – Titus's son<br /> Martius – Titus's son<br /> Mutius – Titus's son<br /> Young Lucius – Lucius's son<br /> Lavinia – Titus's daughter<br /> Marcus Andronicus – Titus's brother and tribune to the people of Rome<br /> Publius – Marcus's son<br /> Saturninus – Son of the late Emperor of Rome; declared Emperor<br /> Bassianus – Saturninus's brother and Lavinia's lover<br /> Sempronius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Caius – Titus's kinsman<br /> Valentine – Titus's kinsman<br /> Æmilius – Roman noble<br /> Tamora – Queen of the Goths; later, the Empress of Rome<br /> Demetrius – Tamora's son<br /> Chiron – Tamora's son<br /> Alarbus – Tamora's son; executed early on<br /> Aaron – a Moor servant; secret sexual partner of Tamora<br /> <br /> ==Plot==<br /> <br /> The Emperor of Rome has died shortly before the plot takes place. The story begins with his two sons, Saturninus and Bassianus, arguing over who will take his place as ruler. Their squabbling is interrupted by the arrival of General Titus Andronicus, who has just completed a successful military campaign against the Goths. With him are the prisoners; Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and her Moor servant, Aaron. Despite claiming victory, the conflict has cost Titus several of his sons. To repay the loss, he orders the sacrifice of Tamora's eldest son. Tamora and her remaining sons vow revenge. <br /> <br /> Though the public wish for Titus to take the role as Emperor, Titus refuses the position and allows Saturninus to take over. Saturninus declares his wish to marry Titus' daughter Lavinia, however Lavinia is already betrothed to Bassianus. Titus' sons intervene on Lavinia's behalf, but this only serves to infuriate Titus. He accuses his sons and daughter of treason, and in the ensuing scuffle, murders his own son Mutius. Emperor Saturninus is shocked by the display, and scorns the Andronicus family. He chooses to marry Queen Tamora instead. Queen Tamora convinces Saturninus to pardon his brother and the Andronicus family, thus securing them for her future schemes of revenge.<br /> <br /> During a hunt in the woods, Aaron convinces Tamora's two remaining sons to murder Bassianus and rape Lavinia. They do so, cutting off Lavinia's hands and tongue to prevent her from exposing the truth. Aaron uses a forged letter to convince Saturninus that it was Titus's sons who murdered Basssianus. The destitute Saturninus responds by ordering the execution of the sons Martius and Quintus. News of the execution, reaches the Titus family. Titus breaks down in tears on hearing of the planned execution, and on seeing his mutilated daughter. Aaron convinces Titus that if he were to cut away his hand and send it to Saturninus as tribute, the two sons would be spared. Titus obliges, only to receive the two heads of his sons in exchange for his severed hand.<br /> <br /> Titus vows revenge and orders his remaining son, Lucius, to return to the Goths to raise an army. Lavinia, inspired by a passage from [[Ovid]], takes a stick between her stumps and writes out the names of her attackers in the dirt. Meanwhile, Tamora gives birth to a mixed race son. Aaron, clearly the father, murders the midwife and flees with the baby (who would inevitably be put to death). He is captured by Lucius' army, and to secure the future of his child, Aaron reveals the entire plot against the Andronicus family. <br /> <br /> Titus appears to have gone insane. Hoping to exploit this, Tamora and her two sons adopt disguises and approach Titus. They request Titus to cancel the army's assault on Rome. Titus agrees, and invites everyone to a feast to reconcile. He insists that the two sons remain to help prepare. As soon as Tamora leaves, Titus slits the two son's throats and drains away their blood. <br /> <br /> The next day, at the feast, Titus, Tamora and Saturninus eat a fresh baked pie together. Titus asks Saturninus if it is right for a father to murder his raped daughter. When Saturninus says yes, Titus snaps Lavinia's neck at the table. Titus reveals that she was raped. He then reveals that Tamora's sons were baked into the pie they have just ate. Titus murders the shocked Tamora, Saturninus kills Titus, and finally Lucius kills Saturninus. Lucius is declared Emperor of Rome. He arranges for Saturninus to receive a proper burial, for Tamora's body to be thrown to wild beasts, and for Aaron to be left up to his chest in dirt in the wilderness, to slowly die of thirst. Aaron refuses to repent, his only regret being that he can do no further evil in this life.<br /> <br /> ===External Links===<br /> Open Source Shakespeare - Titus Andronicus [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=titus]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Plays of Shakespeare]]</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Indian_Christian_lady_dancers&diff=892908 2011-07-24T16:29:44Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>You know, all dancers tend to be slender, regardless of religion. How do you explain the slender Buddhist Thai dancers? or the Indonesian dancers? Or the Japanese? Or, for that matter, the ballet dancers from atheistic Russia? Seriously, you want to make an impact - attack Jillette on his beliefs, his claims, etc, refute his article. But comparing him to walrusses and dancers and ponies is - quite frankly - childish. And before you say anything, no, this is not satire - it's cheap [[liberal name-calling|name-calling.]] [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Greatest article ever!! The left is far more indulgent and excessive than they'd like us all to believe. A little reality and comedy might make one of those plump Communists give their cheese curls/pot money to someone who could use a square meal.[[Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] 04:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Tracy, &quot;all dancers&quot;? Apparently, you didn't see the video of Penn Jillette doing the &quot;Cha, cha, cha&quot; with his slick &quot;walrus slide&quot;! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Oh dear. If that's the analogy you want to make, maybe you should compare Jillette's dance with any one of hundreds of wedding reception videos on YouTube. The ones with the fat aunties falling into the buffet. If you want to make comparisons, at least compare like with like. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I added a section entitled: Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:52, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :It is really great that Indians have opened up to Christ. Good section.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::A lot more work needs to be done. China is seeing explosive growth though. Maybe more trading with China will cause Christianity to spread more in India even through they are economic rivals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I really do hope that Christianity greatly expands in southeast Asia. It seems the West is rejecting Christ on a large scale and many across the globe are embracing Him. Perhaps trade will help, as well as missionairies, who are really making progress in Japan, including a missionary from my church.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:38, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::That is certainly good news. I wonder if people in the East are more open minded than people in the West? That would also explain the diversity of religions that went on there prior to Christianity. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:27, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The British could have behaved better in India which would have made missionary activity easier in the past. If India gets commercially stronger and does more and more trading with other countries, Christianity could make more inroads into India plus there is the indigenous Christian population as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Ah yes, Indian culture, with the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Remind me again just which part of this culture is so &quot;genteel&quot; and admirable? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::You still haven't answered which part of Indian culture is more genteel - the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Which is it, so I know to aspire to it. 11:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::: آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::Wow! Now there's a mature response! Seriously, it's like arguing with a 3-year-old. Who's learnt how to use Babelfish. Then again, copy/paste is what you do best, right? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:21, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == incredibly stupid ==<br /> <br /> The essay is incredibly stupid. I don't know where to begin. Normally I wouldn't worry about something that a specific individual &quot;owns&quot; and has locked (therefore removing it from the &quot;wiki&quot; part of the wiki.) But I find it disgraceful that this essay is linked from the front page. It does no good to try to get math and science articles in good shape (and remove parody, of which there is a lot, from same) if the front page drives away serious readers. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:30, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::If you didn't know where to begin, maybe you should have given more deliberation to your post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I can have a go. My girlfriend just so happens to be Indian, Catholic and a lindy-hopper, so with the benefit of her insight, I feel there are some salient points to make. 1) South and East Asians across the board are much thinner than Westerners, regardless of their religion or their dancing. Perhaps essays (however &quot;comical&quot;) about girth demographics should be better spent examining diet and income over religious affiliation. 2) The article would be funnier if its internal logic made sense on its own terms. If we accept the comic premise that religious folk dance more, so are thus thinner than fatty athiests, then we have to ignore the fact that the more pious USA has far greater rates of obesity than less religious Europeans. 3) This article is one of many that takes the time to examine the personal lives of atheist figures. This means lots of personal remarks about Dawkin's married life, or Jillette's waist line. Say what you will about the philosophies and political actions of atheists, but fat jokes and slights about marriage life should be beneath any self-respecting encyclopedia. Even bad comedians tend to consider such jokes as in poor taste. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 12:20, 23 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maninahat, I hope you are not saying that &quot;superior atheist intellects&quot; are not smart enough to change their diets and that [[Richard Dawkins]] is not smart enough to get along with women. By the way, like many Conservapedia atheists, you have not mastered how to spell the words &quot;atheist&quot; and &quot;atheists&quot;. I suggest becoming a Christian so you can develop more self-discipline in terms of your study habits. Also, consider learning the statistical concepts of regression analysis and the [[Generalized linear model]] (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). I would also suggest looking at the abundance of data that Conservapedia offers in its [[Atheism and obesity]] article. Lastly, I am sorry to hear you are a thin skinned atheist who lacks a sense of humor about thick skinned atheists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:38, 23 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::No I wasn't, Conservative. I don't know how you inferred that considering I never mentioned anything about the atheist dieting or relationship acumen. I also don't see why you would assume I'm an atheist, unless you regard ''any'' criticism of your writing as proof of an atheist motive (a thin-skinned atheist motive, that is). I took the time to read the articles you posted, though I needn't have bothered reading far; the first sentence of ''Atheism and obesity'' alone is inconsistent with what your essay: [from [[Atheism and obesity]]] &quot;Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviours than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious.&quot; Notice the placement of the moderately religious alongside the nonreligious in terms of health. It doesn't state that either group is fat, it merely states the very religious are more healthy than the others. Even if you took that to mean atheists are fat, you'd also have to assume the moderately religious (who are also not as healthy as the very religious) are also fat. Finally, thank you for correcting my spelling. I will now extend the same courtesy to your essay (uncouth does not need an e). [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:25, 23 July 2011 (EDT).<br /> <br /> I can assure you, I gave plenty of deliberation to my post. My inability to know where to begin has nothing to do with lack of research or preparation on my part; it relates to the fact that the stupidity is just so pervasive that I literally don't know where to begin.<br /> <br /> You see, I have been observing your writings for a couple of years now, and I am quite familiar with your efforts. Until recently, everything you wrote was protected, and the talk pages themselves were protected (or made into protected redirects of some of your other (protected) efforts), and you had no email enabled, and your user and talk page were protected. This led to the obvious conclusion that you actually had no interest in communicating with anyone, and were just posting things out of some kind of narcissism or something. In any case, I just dismissed all of your efforts as something that doesn't belong on a wiki (we ''collaborate'') and so I would just laugh and move on.<br /> <br /> But now that, perhaps persuaded by other sysops, you have unlocked these talk pages, people have started to engage you, and the effects are equally risible. I know of no 7-year-old who wouldn't be embarrassed to have written these articles and talk page replies.<br /> <br /> By the way, I see that your replies of 01:35 and 01:36 on 17 July contained a classic attempt an a total non sequitur. It's gratifying to see that you removed same at 01:45.<br /> <br /> Now let's get down to business. While I don't know where to begin, we may as well begin somewhere. The choices are mind-boggling. The flying kitty? The dog chewing the bone? Richard Dawkins? PZ Myers holding a glass of ale? Chuck Norris being &quot;svelte&quot;? The rabbit? The walruses? The clowns? The battleship? The railroad engine? The bullfighter? The dolphin? The pony? The peanut butter? The chickens? The lion? The tumbleweed? The bear? Where to begin? Where to begin?<br /> <br /> So let's begin at the beginning. The first sentence. &quot;Unlike atheists, Christians have a great many songs including dance music.&quot; Huh? Atheists don't appreciate music? Or dance? You're off to an abysmal start there, and it just goes downhill. I'd critique the second sentence, but it's getting late.<br /> <br /> By the way, if you want to engage me on the topics of body mass index, &quot;svelteness&quot;, or physical fitness, let me know. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=892432 2011-07-23T16:10:52Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]] ''This was entered by [[User:DavidMilton]] on his previous account replaced due to lost login details.''<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I will say that as a devout Anglican, I personally find ''that'' opinion very offensive, but I am naturally biased. I would like to bring up the fact that I have heard the same thing said of Irish Roman Catholics (which I also find dubious), where the Catholic Church was nothing more than a social organization, and that people were Catholic solely because of the social and not spiritual benefits. Furthermore your opinion that the Anglican Church has done nothing but create complacency is at odds with the revival of Anglican monasticism and the resurgence of pilgrimage sites like Our Lady of Walsingham, which was started by the Anglican Church and then copied by the Roman Catholics. Though England is certainly not as conservative as the States, leave the Church of England out of it.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::You raise a valid point. Perhaps England would be even more liberal in the absence of the Church of England. How about this: let's move it to the &quot;dubious explanation&quot; category and include your rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::It has been generally considered that England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I cannot find the source off the top of my head, but I know that if it weren't for the results of Wales and Scotland there wouldn't have been a labour government until 1997 (and by that time it was a fairly centrist labour govt compared to earlier times). If you look at this [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/ map] you can see the trend of England is solidly blue, whereas in Wales and Scotland Red and Yellow predominate. The same for [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/default.stm 2005]. It goes without saying that the conservative party in the UK may not be what Andy Schlafly would consider conservative in the US context, but it does tend to indicate that relatively speaking England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I personally would favour a change of name to the United Kingdom. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::The most socially conservative part of the UK and the one with the highest church attendance is the Highlands and Western Isles of Scotland. Interestingly, this is not favourable territory for the so-called Conservative Party, which does not have pro-Christian, socially conservative policies. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:50, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Sure. And conversely, rural areas of the south of England (Cornwall apart) are staunchly conservative. Is it mere coincidence that church attendance is much higher in these areas than in London (atheist/non-Christian)? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==George Patton==<br /> <br /> Although I see the statement has been removed now, I'm curious to know why George Patton, the undoubtedly brilliant Allied commander that the was and home schooled as well, was a 'genius... who could have saved England from ruin.' Obviously I'm missing something here but, aware as I am of his military abilities, arguably verging on genius, I don't understand the contentions. Firstly how England is, or was, ruined, and assuming for sake of arguement it is/was, how Patton could have prevented it. Can someone please enlighten me? Many thanks. [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 11:53, 21 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I removed it as (though he was a genius) as it non sequitur to the purpose of the article and, having done so, there is no mileage to exploring it further in this discussion to improve the article. If this is something that needs exploration in the article on [[George Patton]], please feel free to do so (though as this is not currently contended on this page, there seems little point). [[User:DavidMilton]] 22 July 2011<br /> <br /> ==Post War Complacency==<br /> <br /> I'd like to query the suggestion that post 1945 UK became a complacent nation, as a consequence of NATO and UN support. Apart from the fact that the UK was often at much greater risk in European conflicts than the Americas (suggesting that, using the logic of the argument, US citizens should be even more complacent), the UK was involved in numerous conflicts at home and over seas since the end of WWII. &quot;The Troubles&quot; was the most dramatic, though Britain also was involved in North Korea, Malaysia, The Falklands, and numerous post-colonial related conflicts. Though I could accept the claim that a stable nation becomes more complacent, the United Kingdom was by no means more stable or conflict free than the US. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I didn't live that era but maybe someone else could comment Mr. Hat. England lost it's Empire in the 20th century. It's reserve currency financial status reduced by 90%. Post-war era was rebuilding time and loans. The Korean conflict was short, the Malasia conflict had British mainly as envisors. With exception of the Falklands and Iraq, the English public was not in war mode for 40 of 50 years. The country turned more national than international. Focus became social service handouts and socialism in my humble opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 22 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Economic strife and the loss of the empire should, if anything, make people less complacent as their livelyhood comes under risk. Since 1945, the UK was involved in more than 13 major conflicts. The number goes up to about 21-23 when smaller conflicts are included (such as the Malaysian Emergency), and no year within that 60 year period lacked UK military action. In fact most of the major US post-45 conflicts featured British troops. See [http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html link] for details. As for socialism, the UK already had a fairly extensive welfare system in place before WWII, and I think that is an entirely different argument. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 12:51, 23 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Causes vs effects==<br /> <br /> While I agree that all of the explanations suggested are associated with inferior levels of conservatism in England, I think it is an interesting question whether any given one is a cause, effect, or both. Problems like strong labor unions require a liberal environment to occur, but also cause further liberalism. There is something of a vicious cycle here, in my opinion. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 22 July 2011<br /> <br /> :Good point. I think the labor union issue is more of an effect than a cause. I'll downgrade it to the questionable category.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 22 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Indian_Christian_lady_dancers&diff=892422 2011-07-23T15:22:44Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>You know, all dancers tend to be slender, regardless of religion. How do you explain the slender Buddhist Thai dancers? or the Indonesian dancers? Or the Japanese? Or, for that matter, the ballet dancers from atheistic Russia? Seriously, you want to make an impact - attack Jillette on his beliefs, his claims, etc, refute his article. But comparing him to walrusses and dancers and ponies is - quite frankly - childish. And before you say anything, no, this is not satire - it's cheap [[liberal name-calling|name-calling.]] [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Greatest article ever!! The left is far more indulgent and excessive than they'd like us all to believe. A little reality and comedy might make one of those plump Communists give their cheese curls/pot money to someone who could use a square meal.[[Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] 04:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Tracy, &quot;all dancers&quot;? Apparently, you didn't see the video of Penn Jillette doing the &quot;Cha, cha, cha&quot; with his slick &quot;walrus slide&quot;! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Oh dear. If that's the analogy you want to make, maybe you should compare Jillette's dance with any one of hundreds of wedding reception videos on YouTube. The ones with the fat aunties falling into the buffet. If you want to make comparisons, at least compare like with like. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I added a section entitled: Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:52, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :It is really great that Indians have opened up to Christ. Good section.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::A lot more work needs to be done. China is seeing explosive growth though. Maybe more trading with China will cause Christianity to spread more in India even through they are economic rivals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I really do hope that Christianity greatly expands in southeast Asia. It seems the West is rejecting Christ on a large scale and many across the globe are embracing Him. Perhaps trade will help, as well as missionairies, who are really making progress in Japan, including a missionary from my church.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:38, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::That is certainly good news. I wonder if people in the East are more open minded than people in the West? That would also explain the diversity of religions that went on there prior to Christianity. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:27, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The British could have behaved better in India which would have made missionary activity easier in the past. If India gets commercially stronger and does more and more trading with other countries, Christianity could make more inroads into India plus there is the indigenous Christian population as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Ah yes, Indian culture, with the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Remind me again just which part of this culture is so &quot;genteel&quot; and admirable? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::You still haven't answered which part of Indian culture is more genteel - the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Which is it, so I know to aspire to it. 11:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::: آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::Wow! Now there's a mature response! Seriously, it's like arguing with a 3-year-old. Who's learnt how to use Babelfish. Then again, copy/paste is what you do best, right? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:21, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == incredibly stupid ==<br /> <br /> The essay is incredibly stupid. I don't know where to begin. Normally I wouldn't worry about something that a specific individual &quot;owns&quot; and has locked (therefore removing it from the &quot;wiki&quot; part of the wiki.) But I find it disgraceful that this essay is linked from the front page. It does no good to try to get math and science articles in good shape (and remove parody, of which there is a lot, from same) if the front page drives away serious readers. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:30, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::If you didn't know where to begin, maybe you should have given more deliberation to your post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I can have a go. My girlfriend just so happens to be Indian, Catholic and a lindy-hopper, so with the benefit of her insight, I feel there are some salient points to make. 1) South and East Asians across the board are much thinner than Westerners, regardless of their religion or their dancing. Perhaps essays (however &quot;comical&quot;) about girth demographics should be better spent examining diet and income over religious affiliation. 2) The article would be funnier if its internal logic made sense on its own terms. If we accept the comic premise that religious folk dance more, so are thus thinner than fatty athiests, then we have to ignore the fact that the more pious USA has far greater rates of obesity than less religious Europeans. 3) This article is one of many that takes the time to examine the personal lives of athiest figures. This means lots of personal remarks about Dawkin's married life, or Jillette's waist line. Say what you will about the philosophies and political actions of athiests, but fat jokes and slights about marriage life should be beneath any self-respecting encyclopedia. Even bad comedians tend to consider such jokes as in poor taste. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 12:20, 23 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Indian_Christian_lady_dancers&diff=892421 2011-07-23T15:21:36Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>You know, all dancers tend to be slender, regardless of religion. How do you explain the slender Buddhist Thai dancers? or the Indonesian dancers? Or the Japanese? Or, for that matter, the ballet dancers from atheistic Russia? Seriously, you want to make an impact - attack Jillette on his beliefs, his claims, etc, refute his article. But comparing him to walrusses and dancers and ponies is - quite frankly - childish. And before you say anything, no, this is not satire - it's cheap [[liberal name-calling|name-calling.]] [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Greatest article ever!! The left is far more indulgent and excessive than they'd like us all to believe. A little reality and comedy might make one of those plump Communists give their cheese curls/pot money to someone who could use a square meal.[[Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] 04:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Tracy, &quot;all dancers&quot;? Apparently, you didn't see the video of Penn Jillette doing the &quot;Cha, cha, cha&quot; with his slick &quot;walrus slide&quot;! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Oh dear. If that's the analogy you want to make, maybe you should compare Jillette's dance with any one of hundreds of wedding reception videos on YouTube. The ones with the fat aunties falling into the buffet. If you want to make comparisons, at least compare like with like. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I added a section entitled: Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist &quot;culture&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:52, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :It is really great that Indians have opened up to Christ. Good section.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::A lot more work needs to be done. China is seeing explosive growth though. Maybe more trading with China will cause Christianity to spread more in India even through they are economic rivals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I really do hope that Christianity greatly expands in southeast Asia. It seems the West is rejecting Christ on a large scale and many across the globe are embracing Him. Perhaps trade will help, as well as missionairies, who are really making progress in Japan, including a missionary from my church.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:38, 16 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::That is certainly good news. I wonder if people in the East are more open minded than people in the West? That would also explain the diversity of religions that went on there prior to Christianity. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:27, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The British could have behaved better in India which would have made missionary activity easier in the past. If India gets commercially stronger and does more and more trading with other countries, Christianity could make more inroads into India plus there is the indigenous Christian population as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Ah yes, Indian culture, with the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Remind me again just which part of this culture is so &quot;genteel&quot; and admirable? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::You still haven't answered which part of Indian culture is more genteel - the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Which is it, so I know to aspire to it. 11:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::: آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::Wow! Now there's a mature response! Seriously, it's like arguing with a 3-year-old. Who's learnt how to use Babelfish. Then again, copy/paste is what you do best, right? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:21, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == incredibly stupid ==<br /> <br /> The essay is incredibly stupid. I don't know where to begin. Normally I wouldn't worry about something that a specific individual &quot;owns&quot; and has locked (therefore removing it from the &quot;wiki&quot; part of the wiki.) But I find it disgraceful that this essay is linked from the front page. It does no good to try to get math and science articles in good shape (and remove parody, of which there is a lot, from same) if the front page drives away serious readers. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:30, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::If you didn't know where to begin, maybe you should have given more deliberation to your post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I can have a go. My girlfriend just so happens to be Indian, Catholic and a lindy-hopper, so with the benefit of her insight, I feel there are some salient points to make. 1) South and East Asians across the board are much thinner than Westerners, regardless of their religion or their dancing. Perhaps essays (however &quot;comical&quot;) about girth demographics should be better spent examining diet and income over religious affiliation. <br /> 2) The article would be funnier if its internal logic made sense on its own terms. If we accept the comic premise that religious folk dance more, so are thus thinner than fatty athiests, then we have to ignore the fact that the more pious USA has far greater rates of obesity than less religious Europeans. <br /> 3) This article is one of many that takes the time to examine the personal lives of athiest figures. This means lots of personal remarks about Dawkin's married life, or Jillette's waist line. Say what you will about the philosophies and political actions of athiests, but fat jokes and slights about marriage life should be beneath any self-respecting encyclopedia. Even bad comedians tend to consider such jokes as in poor taste. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 12:20, 23 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=892175 2011-07-22T17:11:12Z

<p>Maninahat: /* Post War Complacency */</p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]] ''This was entered by [[User:DavidMilton]] on his previous account replaced due to lost login details.''<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I will say that as a devout Anglican, I personally find ''that'' opinion very offensive, but I am naturally biased. I would like to bring up the fact that I have heard the same thing said of Irish Roman Catholics (which I also find dubious), where the Catholic Church was nothing more than a social organization, and that people were Catholic solely because of the social and not spiritual benefits. Furthermore your opinion that the Anglican Church has done nothing but create complacency is at odds with the revival of Anglican monasticism and the resurgence of pilgrimage sites like Our Lady of Walsingham, which was started by the Anglican Church and then copied by the Roman Catholics. Though England is certainly not as conservative as the States, leave the Church of England out of it.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::You raise a valid point. Perhaps England would be even more liberal in the absence of the Church of England. How about this: let's move it to the &quot;dubious explanation&quot; category and include your rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::It has been generally considered that England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I cannot find the source off the top of my head, but I know that if it weren't for the results of Wales and Scotland there wouldn't have been a labour government until 1997 (and by that time it was a fairly centrist labour govt compared to earlier times). If you look at this [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/ map] you can see the trend of England is solidly blue, whereas in Wales and Scotland Red and Yellow predominate. The same for [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/default.stm 2005]. It goes without saying that the conservative party in the UK may not be what Andy Schlafly would consider conservative in the US context, but it does tend to indicate that relatively speaking England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I personally would favour a change of name to the United Kingdom. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::The most socially conservative part of the UK and the one with the highest church attendance is the Highlands and Western Isles of Scotland. Interestingly, this is not favourable territory for the so-called Conservative Party, which does not have pro-Christian, socially conservative policies. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:50, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Sure. And conversely, rural areas of the south of England (Cornwall apart) are staunchly conservative. Is it mere coincidence that church attendance is much higher in these areas than in London (atheist/non-Christian)? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==George Patton==<br /> <br /> Although I see the statement has been removed now, I'm curious to know why George Patton, the undoubtedly brilliant Allied commander that the was and home schooled as well, was a 'genius... who could have saved England from ruin.' Obviously I'm missing something here but, aware as I am of his military abilities, arguably verging on genius, I don't understand the contentions. Firstly how England is, or was, ruined, and assuming for sake of arguement it is/was, how Patton could have prevented it. Can someone please enlighten me? Many thanks. [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 11:53, 21 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I removed it as (though he was a genius) as it non sequitur to the purpose of the article and, having done so, there is no mileage to exploring it further in this discussion to improve the article. If this is something that needs exploration in the article on [[George Patton]], please feel free to do so (though as this is not currently contended on this page, there seems little point). [[User:DavidMilton]] 22 July 2011<br /> <br /> ==Post War Complacency==<br /> <br /> I'd like to query the suggestion that post 1945 UK became a complacent nation, as a consequence of NATO and UN support. Apart from the fact that the UK was often at much greater risk in European conflicts than the Americas (suggesting that, using the logic of the argument, US citizens should be even more complacent), the UK was involved in numerous conflicts at home and over seas since the end of WWII. &quot;The Troubles&quot; was the most dramatic, though Britain also was involved in North Korea, Malaysia, The Falklands, and numerous post-colonial related conflicts. Though I could accept the claim that a stable nation becomes more complacent, the United Kingdom was by no means more stable or conflict free than the US. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=892173 2011-07-22T17:10:26Z

<p>Maninahat: /* Post War Complacency */</p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]] ''This was entered by [[User:DavidMilton]] on his previous account replaced due to lost login details.''<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I will say that as a devout Anglican, I personally find ''that'' opinion very offensive, but I am naturally biased. I would like to bring up the fact that I have heard the same thing said of Irish Roman Catholics (which I also find dubious), where the Catholic Church was nothing more than a social organization, and that people were Catholic solely because of the social and not spiritual benefits. Furthermore your opinion that the Anglican Church has done nothing but create complacency is at odds with the revival of Anglican monasticism and the resurgence of pilgrimage sites like Our Lady of Walsingham, which was started by the Anglican Church and then copied by the Roman Catholics. Though England is certainly not as conservative as the States, leave the Church of England out of it.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::You raise a valid point. Perhaps England would be even more liberal in the absence of the Church of England. How about this: let's move it to the &quot;dubious explanation&quot; category and include your rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::It has been generally considered that England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I cannot find the source off the top of my head, but I know that if it weren't for the results of Wales and Scotland there wouldn't have been a labour government until 1997 (and by that time it was a fairly centrist labour govt compared to earlier times). If you look at this [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/ map] you can see the trend of England is solidly blue, whereas in Wales and Scotland Red and Yellow predominate. The same for [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/default.stm 2005]. It goes without saying that the conservative party in the UK may not be what Andy Schlafly would consider conservative in the US context, but it does tend to indicate that relatively speaking England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I personally would favour a change of name to the United Kingdom. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::The most socially conservative part of the UK and the one with the highest church attendance is the Highlands and Western Isles of Scotland. Interestingly, this is not favourable territory for the so-called Conservative Party, which does not have pro-Christian, socially conservative policies. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:50, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Sure. And conversely, rural areas of the south of England (Cornwall apart) are staunchly conservative. Is it mere coincidence that church attendance is much higher in these areas than in London (atheist/non-Christian)? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==George Patton==<br /> <br /> Although I see the statement has been removed now, I'm curious to know why George Patton, the undoubtedly brilliant Allied commander that the was and home schooled as well, was a 'genius... who could have saved England from ruin.' Obviously I'm missing something here but, aware as I am of his military abilities, arguably verging on genius, I don't understand the contentions. Firstly how England is, or was, ruined, and assuming for sake of arguement it is/was, how Patton could have prevented it. Can someone please enlighten me? Many thanks. [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 11:53, 21 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I removed it as (though he was a genius) as it non sequitur to the purpose of the article and, having done so, there is no mileage to exploring it further in this discussion to improve the article. If this is something that needs exploration in the article on [[George Patton]], please feel free to do so (though as this is not currently contended on this page, there seems little point). [[User:DavidMilton]] 22 July 2011<br /> <br /> ==Post War Complacency==<br /> <br /> I'd like to query the suggestion that post 1945 UK became a complacent nation, as a consequence of NATO and UN support. Apart from the fact that the UK was often at much greater risk in European conflicts than the Americas (suggesting that, using the logic of the argument, US citizens should be even more complacent), the UK was involved in numerous conflicts at home and over seas since the end of WWII. &quot;The Troubles&quot; was the most dramatic, though Britain also was involved in North Korea, Malaysia, The Falklands, and numerous post-colonial related conflicts. Though I could accept the claim that a stable nation becomes more complacent, the United Kingdom was, by no means more stable or conflict free than the US. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=892171 2011-07-22T17:09:38Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]] ''This was entered by [[User:DavidMilton]] on his previous account replaced due to lost login details.''<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I will say that as a devout Anglican, I personally find ''that'' opinion very offensive, but I am naturally biased. I would like to bring up the fact that I have heard the same thing said of Irish Roman Catholics (which I also find dubious), where the Catholic Church was nothing more than a social organization, and that people were Catholic solely because of the social and not spiritual benefits. Furthermore your opinion that the Anglican Church has done nothing but create complacency is at odds with the revival of Anglican monasticism and the resurgence of pilgrimage sites like Our Lady of Walsingham, which was started by the Anglican Church and then copied by the Roman Catholics. Though England is certainly not as conservative as the States, leave the Church of England out of it.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::You raise a valid point. Perhaps England would be even more liberal in the absence of the Church of England. How about this: let's move it to the &quot;dubious explanation&quot; category and include your rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::It has been generally considered that England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I cannot find the source off the top of my head, but I know that if it weren't for the results of Wales and Scotland there wouldn't have been a labour government until 1997 (and by that time it was a fairly centrist labour govt compared to earlier times). If you look at this [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/ map] you can see the trend of England is solidly blue, whereas in Wales and Scotland Red and Yellow predominate. The same for [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/default.stm 2005]. It goes without saying that the conservative party in the UK may not be what Andy Schlafly would consider conservative in the US context, but it does tend to indicate that relatively speaking England is the most conservative of the states that make up the UK. I personally would favour a change of name to the United Kingdom. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::The most socially conservative part of the UK and the one with the highest church attendance is the Highlands and Western Isles of Scotland. Interestingly, this is not favourable territory for the so-called Conservative Party, which does not have pro-Christian, socially conservative policies. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:50, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Sure. And conversely, rural areas of the south of England (Cornwall apart) are staunchly conservative. Is it mere coincidence that church attendance is much higher in these areas than in London (atheist/non-Christian)? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==George Patton==<br /> <br /> Although I see the statement has been removed now, I'm curious to know why George Patton, the undoubtedly brilliant Allied commander that the was and home schooled as well, was a 'genius... who could have saved England from ruin.' Obviously I'm missing something here but, aware as I am of his military abilities, arguably verging on genius, I don't understand the contentions. Firstly how England is, or was, ruined, and assuming for sake of arguement it is/was, how Patton could have prevented it. Can someone please enlighten me? Many thanks. [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 11:53, 21 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I removed it as (though he was a genius) as it non sequitur to the purpose of the article and, having done so, there is no mileage to exploring it further in this discussion to improve the article. If this is something that needs exploration in the article on [[George Patton]], please feel free to do so (though as this is not currently contended on this page, there seems little point). [[User:DavidMilton]] 22 July 2011<br /> <br /> ==Post War Complacency==<br /> <br /> I'd like to query the suggestion that post 1945 UK became a complacent nation, as a consequence of NATO and UN support. Apart from the fact that the UK was often at much greater risk in European conflicts than the Americas (suggesting that, by the logic of the statement, US citizens should be even more complacent), the UK was involved in numerous conflicts at home and over seas since the end of WWII. &quot;The Troubles&quot; was the most dramatic, though Britain also was involved in North Korea, Malaysia, The Falklands, and numerous post-colonial related conflicts. Though I could accept the claim that a stable nation becomes more complacent, the United Kingdom was, by no means more stable or conflict free than the US. [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:09, 21 July 2011 (EDT)</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=891320 2011-07-20T17:50:32Z

<p>Maninahat: /* Population Density?? */</p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==<br /> the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)<br /> the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)<br /> <br /> the politicians and people will follow the Church,<br /> because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,<br /> see theelijahchallenge.org<br /> <br /> the Church speaks with authority,<br /> and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)<br /> <br /> Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,<br /> a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,<br /> we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,<br /> the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,<br /> <br /> so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17<br /> <br /> but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,<br /> so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes<br /> see www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> 9-11-01 world trade center collapse<br /> 9-11-08 world trade collapse<br /> 9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,<br /> during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)<br /> 2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08<br /> <br /> SIGNS FROM GOD!<br /> <br /> == '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==<br /> <br /> It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,<br /> <br /> to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,<br /> <br /> the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,<br /> and those Christians prayed for good govt,<br /> and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)<br /> <br /> Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,<br /> <br /> so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,<br /> <br /> and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)<br /> <br /> the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)<br /> <br /> mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,<br /> but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.<br /> <br /> all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,<br /> the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,<br /> WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,<br /> CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,<br /> <br /> but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,<br /> and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,<br /> and the endtimes began<br /> <br /> www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> written by dennis</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=891319 2011-07-20T17:49:51Z

<p>Maninahat: /* Population Density?? */</p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Further muddying the issue are the demographics of voters across the UK. The south, which is less rural, more urban, and more middle-class, tends to be more supportive of the conservative party. The north, noted for its larger proportions of working class, tends to be labour (more left-wing) supporting. Despite this, the northern countryside tends to be predominantly made up of conservative voters, and Northern towns tend to be staunch Labour supporters. Thus the influence of population density on voting seems to be reversed, or outweighed by other factors, depending on which portion of the country you are from. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==<br /> the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)<br /> the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)<br /> <br /> the politicians and people will follow the Church,<br /> because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,<br /> see theelijahchallenge.org<br /> <br /> the Church speaks with authority,<br /> and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)<br /> <br /> Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,<br /> a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,<br /> we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,<br /> the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,<br /> <br /> so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17<br /> <br /> but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,<br /> so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes<br /> see www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> 9-11-01 world trade center collapse<br /> 9-11-08 world trade collapse<br /> 9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,<br /> during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)<br /> 2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08<br /> <br /> SIGNS FROM GOD!<br /> <br /> == '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==<br /> <br /> It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,<br /> <br /> to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,<br /> <br /> the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,<br /> and those Christians prayed for good govt,<br /> and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)<br /> <br /> Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,<br /> <br /> so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,<br /> <br /> and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)<br /> <br /> the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)<br /> <br /> mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,<br /> but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.<br /> <br /> all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,<br /> the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,<br /> WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,<br /> CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,<br /> <br /> but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,<br /> and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,<br /> and the endtimes began<br /> <br /> www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> written by dennis</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=891316 2011-07-20T17:41:08Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was distrustful of national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==<br /> the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)<br /> the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)<br /> <br /> the politicians and people will follow the Church,<br /> because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,<br /> see theelijahchallenge.org<br /> <br /> the Church speaks with authority,<br /> and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)<br /> <br /> Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,<br /> a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,<br /> we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,<br /> the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,<br /> <br /> so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17<br /> <br /> but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,<br /> so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes<br /> see www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> 9-11-01 world trade center collapse<br /> 9-11-08 world trade collapse<br /> 9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,<br /> during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)<br /> 2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08<br /> <br /> SIGNS FROM GOD!<br /> <br /> == '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==<br /> <br /> It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,<br /> <br /> to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,<br /> <br /> the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,<br /> and those Christians prayed for good govt,<br /> and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)<br /> <br /> Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,<br /> <br /> so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,<br /> <br /> and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)<br /> <br /> the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)<br /> <br /> mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,<br /> but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.<br /> <br /> all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,<br /> the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,<br /> WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,<br /> CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,<br /> <br /> but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,<br /> and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,<br /> and the endtimes began<br /> <br /> www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> written by dennis</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Why_is_England_More_Liberal_than_the_United_States%3F&diff=891315 2011-07-20T17:40:21Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Andy, <br /> <br /> This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against &quot;liberalism&quot;. Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning. <br /> :I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out &quot;England&quot; specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]<br /> ::Speaking as an Englishman, this does appear to be the most plausible explanation for the divergence between American and European political sentiments. America as a nation was founded on the rejection of a major controlling governmental force, so the nation's people have long been distrustful of the expansion of government. Concepts like welfare didn't come into their hayday in the UK until the beginning of the 20th Century, long after America had established itself as a nation that was against national programs. The difference then is just the logical conclusion of two countries following those post-revolution trends. I think that most of the other suggestions in this essay (like nationalised television) are symptoms of the differing perspectives, not causes. --[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 14:37, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The entrenched Church of England ==<br /> <br /> I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == More liberal ==<br /> <br /> Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The BBC ==<br /> It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A federal England and freedom of speech==<br /> <br /> This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.<br /> <br /> I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:&lt;br&gt;<br /> ::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Move Request ==<br /> <br /> Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, I don't think so. &quot;England&quot;, the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that &quot;England&quot; as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, &quot;Britain&quot; is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> ::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Population Density?? ==<br /> <br /> I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::: The mystery is why ENGLAND is so liberal not Scotland, which the Highlands of Scotland are in. The metropolitan area of London consists of approx. 26% of the English population--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 13:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==<br /> the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)<br /> the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)<br /> <br /> the politicians and people will follow the Church,<br /> because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,<br /> see theelijahchallenge.org<br /> <br /> the Church speaks with authority,<br /> and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)<br /> <br /> Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,<br /> a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,<br /> we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,<br /> the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,<br /> <br /> so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17<br /> <br /> but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,<br /> so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes<br /> see www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> 9-11-01 world trade center collapse<br /> 9-11-08 world trade collapse<br /> 9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,<br /> during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)<br /> 2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08<br /> <br /> SIGNS FROM GOD!<br /> <br /> == '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==<br /> <br /> It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,<br /> <br /> to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,<br /> <br /> the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,<br /> and those Christians prayed for good govt,<br /> and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)<br /> <br /> Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,<br /> <br /> so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,<br /> <br /> and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)<br /> <br /> the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)<br /> <br /> mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,<br /> but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.<br /> <br /> all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,<br /> the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,<br /> WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,<br /> CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,<br /> <br /> but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,<br /> and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,<br /> and the endtimes began<br /> <br /> www.bible-codes.org<br /> <br /> written by dennis</div>

Maninahat https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_conservapedia_become_the_next_Wikipedia,_is_this_good_or_bad&diff=522458 2008-09-23T00:29:11Z

<p>Maninahat: </p> <hr /> <div>{{debate}}<br /> What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4<br /> <br /> Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1<br /> <br /> : One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi<br /> ::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy<br /> <br /> :Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.<br /> <br /> :CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007<br /> <br /> :::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> :Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that &quot;Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses,&quot; which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased<br /> <br /> <br /> I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool. <br /> Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed &quot;invented&quot; by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.<br /> <br /> If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as &quot;paper&quot; barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.<br /> [[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is &quot;If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain.&quot; Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008<br /> <br /> No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]<br /> <br /> :I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78<br /> ::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a &quot;Liberellapedia&quot; to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of &quot;honesty and fair-play&quot; in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)</div>

Maninahat