Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Touchdown (football)

2007-07-14T00:57:39Z

Mtur: /* Most touchdowns in one season */ Fix table

A '''Touchdown''' occurs when a football player crosses the goal line of the endzone of an opposing team with the [[football (thing)|football]]. In most leagues including the [[NFL]], [[AFL]], [[CFL]] and college and high school football, a touchdown is worth six points. After a touchdown is scored the team that scored the touchdown will kick an [[extra point (football| extra point]] field goal that if completed is worth one point.

==National Football League==
=== Most touchdowns in one season ===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Player
! Team
! Year
! Pos
! Num
! Notes
|-
|1
|[[LaDainian Tomlinson]]
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|2006
|RB
|31
|Also threw two touchdown passes in 2006<ref>http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235249/gamelogs/2006</ref>.
|-
|2
|[[Shaun Alexander]]
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|2005
|RB
|28
|Led the NFL in rushing yardage as well as touchdowns<ref>http://www.nfl.com/stats/2005/regular</ref>
|-
|3
|[[Priest Holmes]]
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|2003
|RB
|27
|Holmes record breaking touchdown came on a forth down and two play<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_3_105/ai_112688829</ref>
|-
|4
|[[Marshall Faulk]]
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|2000
|RB
|26
|
|-
|5
|[[Emmitt Smith]]
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|1995
|RB
|24
|Led the [[Cowboys]] to a [[Super Bowl]] victory in 1995.
|-
|6
|[[John Riggins]]
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|1983
|RB
|23
|
|-
|7
|[[Terrell Davis]]
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|1998
|RB
|23
|
|-
|8
|[[Jerry Rice]]
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|1987
|WR
|23
|Most touchdown is a single season by any wide receiver in NFL history.
|-
|9
|[[O.J. Simpson]]
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|1975
|RB
|23
|
|-
|10
|
[[Emmitt Smith]]
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|1994
|RB
|22
|Broke his own record a year later (1995).
|-
|11
|
[[Chuck Foreman]]
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|1975
|RB
|22
|
|-
|12
|
[[Gale Sayers]]
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|1965
|RB
|22
|Broke the record in his rookie season and is still today the record holder for most touchdowns for a rookie.
|-
{| class="wikitable"

===Most Total Touchdowns ===
|-
!<ref>http://football.about.com/od/nflhistory/a/alltimetouchdow.htm</ref>
! Player
! Pos
! Num
|-
|1
|[[Jerry Rice]]
|WR
|205
|-
|2
|[[Emmitt Smith]]
|RB
|165
|-
|3
|[[Marcus Allen]]
|RB
|145
|-
|4
|[[Marshall Faulk]]
|RB
|136
|-
|5
|[[Cris Carter]]
|WR
|131
|-
|6
|[[Jim Brown]]
|RB
|126
|-
|7
|[[Walter Payton]]
|RB
|125
|-
|8
|[[John Riggins]]
|RB
|116
|-
|9
|[[Lenny Moore]]
|RB
|113
|-
|10
|[[Barry Sanders]]
|RB
|109
|-
{| class="wikitable"
== References ==
<references/>

User talk:DeborahB./Contest

2007-07-13T22:07:53Z

Mtur: one more ship to be moved - not listed on contest page.

== Ship names ==

Could you move the articles with ship names so that they are properly named according to naval conventions? See [[ship naming conventions]] for more information on this. If you have questions please ask. If not me, I recall that there is at least one former navy person as an editor. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

* [[Active-I]] -> [[USS Active (1779)]]
* [[Acubens]] -> [[USS Acubens (AKS-5)]]
* [[Acushnet]] -> [[USS Acushnet (ATO-63)]]
* [[Adair]] -> [[USS Adair (APA-91)]]
* [[Adak]] -> [[USS Adak (YFB-28)]]
* [[Adamant-I]] -> [[USS Adamant (AMc-62)]]
* [[Addie and Carrie]] -> [[USS Addie and Carrie (1884)]]
* [[Addie Douglass]] -> [[USS Addie Douglass (1862)]]
* [[Addison County]] -> [[USS Addison County (LST-31)]]
* [[Addison F. Andrews]] -> [[USS Addison F. Andrews]]
* [[Adela]] -> [[USS Adela]] (dunno about this one)
* [[Adelante]] -> [[USS Adelante (1883)]]
* [[Bamberg County]] -> [[USS Bamberg County (LST 209)]]
* [[Banaag]] -> [[USS Banaag (YT-104)]]
* [[Banago]] -> [[USS Banago (ID-3810)]]
* [[Bancroft-III]] -> [[USS Bancroft (DD-598)]]
* [[Bandera]] -> [[USS Bandera (APA-131)]]
* [[Bang]] -> [[USS Bang (SS-385)]]
* [[Bangor]] -> [[USS Bangor (PF-16)]]
* [[Bangust]] -> [[USS Bangust (DE-739)]]
* [[Banner-I]] -> [[USS Banner (APA-60)]]
* [[Banner-II]] -> [[USS Banner (AKL-25)]]
* [[Banning]] -> [[USS Banning (PCE-886)]]
* [[Bannock]] -> [[USS Bannock (AT-81)]]
* [[Banshee-I]] -> [[USS Banshee (1862)]]
* [[Banshee-II]] -> [[USS Banshee]] (note: don't know about this one)
* [[Baranof]] -> [[USS Baranof]]
* [[Barataria-I]] -> [[USS Barataria (1862)]]
* [[Barataria-II]] -> [[USS Barataria (AVP-33)]]
* [[Barb-I]] -> [[USS Barb (SS-220)]]
* [[Barb-II]] -> [[USS Barb (SSN-596)]]
* [[Barbara]] -> [[USS Barbara (SP-704)]]
* [[Barbarossa]] -> [[USS Barbarossa (1896)]]
* [[Barbel-I]] -> [[USS Barbel (SS-316)]]
* [[Barbel-II]] -> [[USS Barbel (SS-580)]]
* [[Barber]] -> [[USS Barber (DE-161)]]
* [[Barbero]] -> [[USS Barbero (SS-317)]]
* [[Barbet-I]] -> [[USS Barbet (AMc-38)]]
* [[Barbet-II]] -> [[USS Barbet (YMS-45)]]
* [[Barbey]] -> [[USS Barbey (DE-1088)]]
* [[Barbican]] -> [[USS Barbican (ACM-51)]]
* [[Barboncito]] -> [[USS Barboncito (YTB-495)]]
* [[Barbour County]] -> [[USS Barbour County (LST-1195)]]
* [[Barcelo-I]] -> [[USS Barcelo (1886)]]
* [[Barcelo-II]] -> [[USS Barcelo (YP-375)]]
* [[Baretta]] -> [[USS Baretta (YN-60)]]
* [[Barite]] -> [[USS Barite (IX-161)]]
* [[Barker]] -> [[USS Barker (DD-213)]]
* [[Barnegat-I]] -> [[USS Barnegat (1891)]]
* [[Barnegat-II]] -> [[USS Barnegat (AVP-10)]]
* [[Barnes]] -> [[USS Barnes (AVG-20)]]
* [[Barnett-I]] -> [[USS Barnett (SP-1149)]]
* [[Barnett-II]] -> [[USS Barnett (APA-5)]]
* [[Barney-I]] -> [[USS Barney (TB-25)]]
* [[Barney-II]] -> [[USS Barney (DD-149)]]
* [[Barney-III]] -> [[USS Barney (DDG-6)]]
* [[Barnstable]] -> [[USS Barnstable (APA-93)]]
* [[Barnstable County]] -> [[USS Barnstable County (LST-1197)]]
* [[Barnwell]] -> [[USS Barnwell (APA-132)]]
* [[Baron]] -> [[USS Baron (DE-166)]]
* [[Baron De Kalb]] -> [[USS Baron De Kalb (1861)]]
* [[Barr]] -> [[USS Barr ()]]

Note:
* [[Adelaide]]
* [[Barbados]]

These are not your edits.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Please read this to try to get the proper name for ships going forward. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The following ships need to be identified to the proper name and moved:
*[[Beale-I]]
*[[Beale-II]]
*[[Bear]]
*[[Bearss]]
*[[Beatty-I]]
*[[Beatty-II]]
*[[Beaufort-I]]
*[[Beaufort-II]]
*[[Beaufort-III]]
*[[Beaufort-IV]]
*[[Beaufort-V]]
*[[Beaumere II]]
*[[Beaumont]]
*[[Beauregard]]
*[[Beaverhead]]
*[[Bebas]]
*[[Becuna]]
*[[Bedford Victory]]
*[[Beeville]]
*[[Begor]]
*[[Bel Air]]
*[[Belet]]
*[[Belfast]]
*[[Belknap-I]]
*[[Belknap-II]]
*[[Bell-I]]
*[[Bell-II]]
*[[Bella]]
*[[Bellatrix-I]]
*[[Bellatrix-II]]
*[[Belle]]
*[[Belle Grove]]
*[[Belle Isle]]
*[[Belle Italia]]
*[[Belle of Boston]]
*[[Belleau Wood-I]]
*[[Bellerophon]]
*[[Bellingham]]
*[[Bellona]]
*[[Belmont-I]]
*[[Belmont-II]]
*[[Beltrami]]
*[[Beluga]]
*[[Belusan-I]]
*[[Belusan-II]]
*[[Ben Morgan]]
*[[Culebra Island]] -> [[USS Culebra Island (ARG-7)]]

Note:
* [[Belleau Wood-II]] is listed as an edit and was never created.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DeborahB./Contest

2007-07-13T22:03:30Z

Mtur: List of ships that need to be properly identified and moved

== Ship names ==

Could you move the articles with ship names so that they are properly named according to naval conventions? See [[ship naming conventions]] for more information on this. If you have questions please ask. If not me, I recall that there is at least one former navy person as an editor. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

* [[Active-I]] -> [[USS Active (1779)]]
* [[Acubens]] -> [[USS Acubens (AKS-5)]]
* [[Acushnet]] -> [[USS Acushnet (ATO-63)]]
* [[Adair]] -> [[USS Adair (APA-91)]]
* [[Adak]] -> [[USS Adak (YFB-28)]]
* [[Adamant-I]] -> [[USS Adamant (AMc-62)]]
* [[Addie and Carrie]] -> [[USS Addie and Carrie (1884)]]
* [[Addie Douglass]] -> [[USS Addie Douglass (1862)]]
* [[Addison County]] -> [[USS Addison County (LST-31)]]
* [[Addison F. Andrews]] -> [[USS Addison F. Andrews]]
* [[Adela]] -> [[USS Adela]] (dunno about this one)
* [[Adelante]] -> [[USS Adelante (1883)]]
* [[Bamberg County]] -> [[USS Bamberg County (LST 209)]]
* [[Banaag]] -> [[USS Banaag (YT-104)]]
* [[Banago]] -> [[USS Banago (ID-3810)]]
* [[Bancroft-III]] -> [[USS Bancroft (DD-598)]]
* [[Bandera]] -> [[USS Bandera (APA-131)]]
* [[Bang]] -> [[USS Bang (SS-385)]]
* [[Bangor]] -> [[USS Bangor (PF-16)]]
* [[Bangust]] -> [[USS Bangust (DE-739)]]
* [[Banner-I]] -> [[USS Banner (APA-60)]]
* [[Banner-II]] -> [[USS Banner (AKL-25)]]
* [[Banning]] -> [[USS Banning (PCE-886)]]
* [[Bannock]] -> [[USS Bannock (AT-81)]]
* [[Banshee-I]] -> [[USS Banshee (1862)]]
* [[Banshee-II]] -> [[USS Banshee]] (note: don't know about this one)
* [[Baranof]] -> [[USS Baranof]]
* [[Barataria-I]] -> [[USS Barataria (1862)]]
* [[Barataria-II]] -> [[USS Barataria (AVP-33)]]
* [[Barb-I]] -> [[USS Barb (SS-220)]]
* [[Barb-II]] -> [[USS Barb (SSN-596)]]
* [[Barbara]] -> [[USS Barbara (SP-704)]]
* [[Barbarossa]] -> [[USS Barbarossa (1896)]]
* [[Barbel-I]] -> [[USS Barbel (SS-316)]]
* [[Barbel-II]] -> [[USS Barbel (SS-580)]]
* [[Barber]] -> [[USS Barber (DE-161)]]
* [[Barbero]] -> [[USS Barbero (SS-317)]]
* [[Barbet-I]] -> [[USS Barbet (AMc-38)]]
* [[Barbet-II]] -> [[USS Barbet (YMS-45)]]
* [[Barbey]] -> [[USS Barbey (DE-1088)]]
* [[Barbican]] -> [[USS Barbican (ACM-51)]]
* [[Barboncito]] -> [[USS Barboncito (YTB-495)]]
* [[Barbour County]] -> [[USS Barbour County (LST-1195)]]
* [[Barcelo-I]] -> [[USS Barcelo (1886)]]
* [[Barcelo-II]] -> [[USS Barcelo (YP-375)]]
* [[Baretta]] -> [[USS Baretta (YN-60)]]
* [[Barite]] -> [[USS Barite (IX-161)]]
* [[Barker]] -> [[USS Barker (DD-213)]]
* [[Barnegat-I]] -> [[USS Barnegat (1891)]]
* [[Barnegat-II]] -> [[USS Barnegat (AVP-10)]]
* [[Barnes]] -> [[USS Barnes (AVG-20)]]
* [[Barnett-I]] -> [[USS Barnett (SP-1149)]]
* [[Barnett-II]] -> [[USS Barnett (APA-5)]]
* [[Barney-I]] -> [[USS Barney (TB-25)]]
* [[Barney-II]] -> [[USS Barney (DD-149)]]
* [[Barney-III]] -> [[USS Barney (DDG-6)]]
* [[Barnstable]] -> [[USS Barnstable (APA-93)]]
* [[Barnstable County]] -> [[USS Barnstable County (LST-1197)]]
* [[Barnwell]] -> [[USS Barnwell (APA-132)]]
* [[Baron]] -> [[USS Baron (DE-166)]]
* [[Baron De Kalb]] -> [[USS Baron De Kalb (1861)]]
* [[Barr]] -> [[USS Barr ()]]

Note:
* [[Adelaide]]
* [[Barbados]]

These are not your edits.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Please read this to try to get the proper name for ships going forward. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The following ships need to be identified to the proper name and moved:
*[[Beale-I]]
*[[Beale-II]]
*[[Bear]]
*[[Bearss]]
*[[Beatty-I]]
*[[Beatty-II]]
*[[Beaufort-I]]
*[[Beaufort-II]]
*[[Beaufort-III]]
*[[Beaufort-IV]]
*[[Beaufort-V]]
*[[Beaumere II]]
*[[Beaumont]]
*[[Beauregard]]
*[[Beaverhead]]
*[[Bebas]]
*[[Becuna]]
*[[Bedford Victory]]
*[[Beeville]]
*[[Begor]]
*[[Bel Air]]
*[[Belet]]
*[[Belfast]]
*[[Belknap-I]]
*[[Belknap-II]]
*[[Bell-I]]
*[[Bell-II]]
*[[Bella]]
*[[Bellatrix-I]]
*[[Bellatrix-II]]
*[[Belle]]
*[[Belle Grove]]
*[[Belle Isle]]
*[[Belle Italia]]
*[[Belle of Boston]]
*[[Belleau Wood-I]]
*[[Bellerophon]]
*[[Bellingham]]
*[[Bellona]]
*[[Belmont-I]]
*[[Belmont-II]]
*[[Beltrami]]
*[[Beluga]]
*[[Belusan-I]]
*[[Belusan-II]]
*[[Ben Morgan]]

Note:
* [[Belleau Wood-II]] is listed as an edit and was never created.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

World Championship Kinetic Sculpture Race

2007-07-13T21:57:20Z

Mtur: Removing incomplete sentence

The World Championship Kinetic Sculpture Race is the original event of its kind. It is a three day event in [[Humboldt County, California]] staged on Memorial Day weekend each year. In 1969, [[Hobart Brown]] converted a tricycle into a [[human]] powered work of art and raced two friends down the Main Street of [[Ferndale, California]]. The event caught on, and has grown to a three day event with as many as 40 teams entering.

[[category:racing]]

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-07-13T21:54:13Z

Mtur: Full IP address?

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive5|5]]
</center>

|
<center>('''geoplrd''' on AIM/'''geo.plrd At yahoo.com) 
Current messages</center>

== Linus ==

Thank you. I had missed the page of his parole. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 05:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Thank you also for deleting the page I had created by mistake! [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
==You're not conservative==
How come you are on here, your political compass indicates that you are center to center-left. I didn't think other moderates were allowed on here. --[[User:UncleJalapeno|UncleJalapeno]] 10:47, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

*Check out his subtle vandalism here, Geo: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iran-Contra_affair&curid=6481&diff=166849&oldid=118172] Nice, sly changes, Jalapeno, and you being so "new" to CP! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:53, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pleistocene ==

I see that you gave this a definition coming from "evolution". I would have put it down as a term from "geology". I don't want to edit it in case you think I pushing a POV. I would like to know what you think. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sci-Tol ==

It's not possible - the article has been put in a deleted articles category or something to prevent subsequent re-creation. Dunno why, I guess they have their reasons.[[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 12:52, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:I was just adding on that I saw you're a SYSOP. With a big "Ooops!" to go with it! :-) [[User:Fantomas|Fantomas]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== test ==

[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[Conservapedia:Sysop|Site Sheriff]] 14:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 14:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Felicitaciones ==

GRACIAS

== Your template(s) ==

{{TemplateDocRqd|ClayPin|sysop=true|done=yes}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, please ask me to delete it for you, or Philip, Geo...if your hands are broken! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:04, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:(The message previously said to ask a sysop to delete unwanted templates, but I've altered the message to no longer say that.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I saw the earlier ones, and got my humor in before you caught it! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:19, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Geo, thanks for putting them on the template list, but they also need to be documented on each template's page. I've done {{tl|ClayPin}} for you as an example, although I'm not sure of a couple of points, so please review that one as well. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== AIM? ==

Aim! Please message. Read my posts there. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:33, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Apologies, but I am not near a IM client right now. I will hopefully be able to IM you when I get home in a few hours. Site Sheriff(Sysop)[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::*Paint ball? ;-) I will forward on to you a recent email about all this. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:55, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== blah ==

--[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:49, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<center><big>Copyright Violations</big></center>

== Moon and the Times ==

This fact is clearly stated in our entry for the paper - why shouldn't it be in the Moon entry? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry - my bad. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 21:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==

Look, can you unlock the [[Uncyclopedia]] article? There's hardly anything on there and more is needed, but we can't edit it because you've protected it! Why did you protect it for? There's no reason to. Please unprotect '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

When and if you make it back, Scorpion, Geo might be able to answer you, or not. This isn't WP. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Uh, I don't know what "When or if you make it back" means. I'm still on here. Any Geo, here's the material I'd like you to add:

''Uncyclopedia, despite being a parody of Wikipedia, supports much of the same material that Wikipedia does. They take an obviously liberal stance, and much of their humor is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, labelling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism via a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism.'' '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Scorpio==

User:Scorpio has been blocked for one week for twice removing discussion page comments from RSchlafly'es page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=217145&oldid=216629

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RSchlafly&diff=prev&oldid=217848

I believe we have evidence of a meatpuppet attack on me after a "chat" with TK. The removal of comments from RSchlafly's page were critical of TK.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=prev&oldid=211850

Geoffrey, you can begin examination of the facts right here, and determine if User:Scorpio has become a meatpuppet of TK. TK offered to block Scorpio on the discussion list (available in the Search engine) and privately. Since the Conley email, it appears TK contacted Scorpio, and TK has further intiated other actions that have no transparency.

In the meantime, I await you forwarding me any and all transcripts of discussions on processes. Scorpio will remain blocked for information destruction from RSchlafly's page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, you're approved as our first judge for the contest. There will be additional judges also. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Greetings, fellow judge! ==

Hi, Geo. I have accepted the team captains' appointment as a [[Conservapedia:Team contest|judge]].

Thus far, I've put in for the consideration of having our own namespace so that we can "retire to chambers" as we weigh the "evidence."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:31, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome, Geo, as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geo, as you can see, the [[Judges:Contest|chambers]] is now open. Thus far you and I are the only two Judges. I assume that that will soon change.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:47, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy mediation ==

Geo, I invite you over to the McCarthy Discussion page for a mediation issue that I'm hoping you can resolve. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:

::''He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.''

:It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:22, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I'll do it but please be prepared to unblock me and the McCarthy page after Rob gets upset. :p [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Geoff, Rob has reverted the work I did as per your orders. I informed him that he is in contempt of your status as Mediator. I await your further instructions. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 00:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Geoff, thanks for making the change but there is an extra "period" in the new sentence so I'm going have to fix that. Also, I don't think there was a need for a new section for the "Moynihan" info since it's essentially related to the Venona info and should be included in that parapraph. Would you mind terribly if I simply reverted back to the latest changes which you authorized me to do last night? It would make the flow of the article more concise. I would appreciate that. Please let me know. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::The key word we need to place in the Intro is "conspiracy." For one half century (and still today) teachers in classrooms at all levels, junior high school through Graduate School, maintain McCarthy was a right-wing paranoid conspiracy theorist whose crusades produced nothing. The U.S Government Secrecy Commission in its Final Report in 1995 gave McCarthy a clean bill of health with "The first fact is, there was a conspiracy..."

::So, we have two statements. Scorpio has inserted extensive quotes from what is commonly known as McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black" speech, which needs to be contrasted with the exoneration from the Secrecy Commission findings.

::A big concern I have with Venona documents is, that in no way they be misrepresented to say something other than what they say. Hence, we need to place exoneration from the Secrecy Commission in the Intro, and not represent Venona as something other than what it is.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:28, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Rob, again, you refuse to address MOS which forbids what you propose. The new intro as placed by Geo does in fact do what you say needs to be done without going into elaborate detail. The detail is in the appropriate sub-section. The current format is more in line with MOS than what you had there before and does the job adequately. The only thing I suggest is that the new section be changed from "Declassified Soviet Files" to "Declassified Soviet files & McCarthy vindication". There are still many things that need to be done to this article in order to present pertinent info but as you may have noticed, I have stopped adding anything further until these ridiculously simple matters are resolved. I've got lots of great stuff to add but we are getting bogged down in procedure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm involved with the contest right now (as Geo is too), so I haven't really been able to engage all that needs to be discussed. As per the MOS, I need to discuss with the MOS author what historiography of dead persons vs bios living polticians should be, because that recommended format you cite is intended for living persons.

::::As to the substance of "conspiracy', this is in keeping with your original idea in the opening which was edited out, "subsequently proving"; McCarthy didn't prove conspiracy, but the Secrecy Commission did. As to the new subtitle, we should probably discuss the overall structure once I'm available after the contest is over, cause I'm a bit uneasy about putting ==Venona== under ==US Senate==. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Full IP address? ==

I am concerned about the publishing of the full IP address of users. Does this conflict with [[Conservapedia:Privacy policy]]. Is [[Conservapedia:Shame]] in conflict with sharing private information with the world? I am not sure if that page is what is being used to report vandalism to the authorities. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:54, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DeborahB./Contest

2007-07-13T19:15:44Z

Mtur: Please read this!

Benevolence

2007-07-13T18:57:06Z

Mtur: Not my greatest work - a home to have people see the what should be done for ship names.

Benevolence is the inclination to do good

Talk:Beale-I

2007-07-13T18:26:28Z

Mtur: STOP NAMING PAGES LIKE THIS

Please check your talk page for your contest and read it. It is important to get this under control before too much more work needs to be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:26, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Ship's Bells

2007-07-12T21:20:23Z

Mtur: A little bit of research - article rewrite.

A '''Ship's bells''' are used to indicate time onboard ship. One bell sounds for each half hour. Bells are rung in pairs to make it easier to count.<ref>http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/shipbee.htm</ref> Thus, for a watch starting at 12:00, one bell means 12:30, two bells mean 1:00, two bells pause 1 bell means 1:30, and so on until 4:00 ("eight bells"). This cycle starts again for the next watch.

The use of 30 minutes as the interval between bells originates from the use of a half hour glass to keep time. Each half hour, the glass would be flipped and the appropriate count of the bell would be rung.<ref>http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq83-1.htm</ref>

{|border=1
|-
!Number of bells
!colspan=3|Hour
|-
!One bell
|12:30
|4:30
|8:30
|-
!Two bells
|1:00
|5:00
|9:00
|-
!Three bells
|1:30
|5:30
|9:30
|-
!Four bells
|2:00
|6:00
|10:00
|-
!Five bells
|2:30
|6:30
|10:30
|-
!Six bells
|3:00
|7:00
|11:00
|-
!Seven bells
|3:30
|7:30
|11:30
|-
!Eight bells
|4:00
|8:00
|12:00
|}

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Shipping terms]]

Irve Lewis Libby Jr.

2007-07-12T18:52:32Z

Mtur: adding refrence to material

[[Image:Hdy567.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr.''' is a former deputy Secretary of Defense, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor and private Attorney to Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Libby was born in New Haven, [[Connecticut]]; his father was an investment banker.<ref>[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051031/31libby.htm "A Rough Road For 'Scooter'?"], Kenneth T. Walsh</ref> Various sources report that he has been rather secretive about his actual first name, and that the initial "I." stands for Irving.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4965501 "Guarding the 'I' in I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby"], Mike Pesca, National Public Radio, October 19, 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201439.html "In the Spotlight And on the Spot: Scooter Libby, Backstage No More"], Mark Leibovich, [[Washington Post]], 23 October, 2005.</ref> According to interviews, he first acquired his nickname "Scooter" as an infant, when his father, after seeing him move quickly across his crib, described him as "a scooter".<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/27/politics/main989970.shtml "Libby: Lawyer, Adviser, Author:] Cheney's Chief Of Staff Both Political Insider And Acclaimed Novelist", Stephen Smith, [[CBS News]], [[28 October]], [[2005]]</ref>

He previously served as the attorney of Marc David Reich, whom was convicted of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran,<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/ CNN - GOP lawyer: Facts 'misconstrued' in Rich case]</ref> and was then given a full pardon by [[Bill Clinton]] in Janurary, 2001. 

He was convicted on 3 of 5 charges in the Plame Affair, including perjury and obstruction of justice. He received a Presidential Commutation which got rid of his 30 months in prison, but left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation

==Valerie Plame case==
Libby was convicted on four counts and his sentence was later commuted. The convictions were on:

*Obstruction of Justice (intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA);
*Making a False Statement (intentionally giving the FBI false information about a conversation he had with [[Tim Russert]]);
*Perjury (knowingly providing false testimony about a conversation he had with Russert and knowingly providing false testimony about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment).
He was found not guilty on an additional charge, that he gave false statements to the FBI about his conversation with ''Time'' magazine reporter Matt Cooper.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/ MSNBC]</ref>

Libby testified that he learned about Plame from the White House about a month before Russert told him in a phone conversation, and that he told Russert he didn't know about Plame. Russert testified that Plame was not mentioned in the phone call, and documents showed that it was unlikely that Libby had forgotten about Plame. Libby did not testify at his trial, and it is not known how he would have resolved the apparent contradictions.

Although the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence of 15-21 months, Judge Reggie B. Walton (appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush) sentenced Libby to thirty months in jail and a fine of $250,000 on June 5th, 2007.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial Yahoo News]</ref>

==Response to Conviction and Sentence==

Libby's lawyers repeatedly emphasized that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was disclosed by columnist Robert Novak in July of 2003 and that Novak's "primary sources" were Richard Armitage (former deputy Secretary of State) and Karl Rove (a presidential advisor) ... not Scooter Libby. In addition, a CIA spokesperson, Bill Harlow, confirmed the information about Plame's CIA employment to Novak.

It was also noted that the overwhelming evidence from the FBI and grand jury investigations and the trial proceedings shows that neither Libby nor the numerous other government official who discussed Ms. Wilson's employment believed she was covert, or that her employment status was classified. As a result, none of the five witness who testified that Libby discussed Plame with them suggested that they felt that they were having a conversation about a covert or classified employee, a point affirmed in an August 2004 government affidavit and the government's Guidelines Memorandum ("the information to which defendant was given access did not expressly identify Ms. Wilson as a covert agent.")

With respect to the sentencing stage, Libby's lawyers complained about the behavior of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In October 2005, Fitzgerald said (in a press conference) that he would not speak to "whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." Early in discovery, Libby's lawyers sought documents which addressed the topic and the government refused to provide the information because it was "irrelevant." The government argued Wilson's status was "not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged." In June of 2006, the court issued a discovery order which, again, emphasized that Wilson's employment was "immaterial to the preparation of the defense." In preliminary instructions to the jury, the judge said her "actual status" was "totally irrelevant" to any "assessment" of the Libby's guilty or innocence. After the trial, however, in its sentencing memo, the government adopted a "new position" - that Wilson was a "covert agent" and that Libby should be sentenced as though that fact were established at trial.

==Libby and Presidential Clemency==

Almost from the beginning of his trial the President was encouraged to pardon Libby. Among those calling for pardon were [[William F. Buckley]], Jr, [[Fred Thompson]], Cal Thomas, [[Ann Coulter]], Jack Kemp, [[Tom DeLay]].<ref>http://libbypardon.net/procon.htm</ref> and Robert Bauer, general counsel to [[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html Obama aide wants Libby pardoned], By Sam Youngman, ''The Hill'', June 14, 2007.</ref> But the trial continued and sentence was announced without presidential interference. As decisions were being made regarding the possibility of bail, many believed President Bush's hand would be forced, that he would have to grant a pardon in order to spare Libby from entering prison. <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY2MzRiNTAwZmE3NjZhMzZmODNhMTcyYjUzYzc4MjQ= "Respite for Libby?"] ''National Review'', June 14, 2007</ref>
On July 2, 2007, after a ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Libby's prison sentence couldn't be suspended as the appeals process was pursued, President Bush's hand was forced and he commuted Libby's prison sentence. This means that while Libby will serve no jail time, he will still have to pay the fine, stay on probation, and the conviction will remain on his record. <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html] "Grant of Executive Clemency, July 2, 2007",</ref> This decision was decried by Democratic Party Presidential candidates [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA.bUy89_1hk&refer=homeBush Commutes Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak Case], By Edwin Chen, "Bloomberg.com", July 2, 2007.</ref> though supported by others.

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html Libby Trial Documents]
* [http://www.scooterlibby.com/ Libby Legal Defense Fund]
* [http://libbypardon.net Pardon for Libby? Blog]
* [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988 Robert Novak on the Libby Trial]
* [http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/government/06082007.htm The Incredible Judicial Disparity: Berger v. Libby], Frank Salvato, June 8, 2007.
* [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html Libby Letters] -- letters from [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Henry Kissinger]], [[Paul Wolfowitz]], [[John Bolton]], [[Mary Matalin]], [[James Carville]], [[Peter Pace]], [[Richard Perle]], [[James Woolsey]], [[Douglas Feith]], [[Christopher Cox]], [[Leon Wieseltier]], [[Leonard Garment]], [[Alan Simpson]], [[Natan Sharansky]], [[Richard Myers]], and [[Anthony Fauci]], petition the Judge for leniency. [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyletterscomplete.pdf]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Libby, Lewis}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Irve Lewis Libby Jr.

2007-07-12T18:49:26Z

Mtur: Reinserting material about Marc Rich/Reich lost with previous edit.

[[Image:Hdy567.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr.''' is a former deputy Secretary of Defense, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor and private Attorney to Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Libby was born in New Haven, [[Connecticut]]; his father was an investment banker.<ref>[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051031/31libby.htm "A Rough Road For 'Scooter'?"], Kenneth T. Walsh</ref> Various sources report that he has been rather secretive about his actual first name, and that the initial "I." stands for Irving.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4965501 "Guarding the 'I' in I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby"], Mike Pesca, National Public Radio, October 19, 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201439.html "In the Spotlight And on the Spot: Scooter Libby, Backstage No More"], Mark Leibovich, [[Washington Post]], 23 October, 2005.</ref> According to interviews, he first acquired his nickname "Scooter" as an infant, when his father, after seeing him move quickly across his crib, described him as "a scooter".<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/27/politics/main989970.shtml "Libby: Lawyer, Adviser, Author:] Cheney's Chief Of Staff Both Political Insider And Acclaimed Novelist", Stephen Smith, [[CBS News]], [[28 October]], [[2005]]</ref>

He previously served as the attorney of Marc David Reich, whom was convicted of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran, and was then given a full pardon by [[Bill Clinton]] in Janurary, 2001.

He was convicted on 3 of 5 charges in the Plame Affair, including perjury and obstruction of justice. He received a Presidential Commutation which got rid of his 30 months in prison, but left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation

==Valerie Plame case==
Libby was convicted on four counts and his sentence was later commuted. The convictions were on:

*Obstruction of Justice (intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA);
*Making a False Statement (intentionally giving the FBI false information about a conversation he had with [[Tim Russert]]);
*Perjury (knowingly providing false testimony about a conversation he had with Russert and knowingly providing false testimony about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment).
He was found not guilty on an additional charge, that he gave false statements to the FBI about his conversation with ''Time'' magazine reporter Matt Cooper.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/ MSNBC]</ref>

Libby testified that he learned about Plame from the White House about a month before Russert told him in a phone conversation, and that he told Russert he didn't know about Plame. Russert testified that Plame was not mentioned in the phone call, and documents showed that it was unlikely that Libby had forgotten about Plame. Libby did not testify at his trial, and it is not known how he would have resolved the apparent contradictions.

Although the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence of 15-21 months, Judge Reggie B. Walton (appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush) sentenced Libby to thirty months in jail and a fine of $250,000 on June 5th, 2007.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial Yahoo News]</ref>

==Response to Conviction and Sentence==

Libby's lawyers repeatedly emphasized that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was disclosed by columnist Robert Novak in July of 2003 and that Novak's "primary sources" were Richard Armitage (former deputy Secretary of State) and Karl Rove (a presidential advisor) ... not Scooter Libby. In addition, a CIA spokesperson, Bill Harlow, confirmed the information about Plame's CIA employment to Novak.

It was also noted that the overwhelming evidence from the FBI and grand jury investigations and the trial proceedings shows that neither Libby nor the numerous other government official who discussed Ms. Wilson's employment believed she was covert, or that her employment status was classified. As a result, none of the five witness who testified that Libby discussed Plame with them suggested that they felt that they were having a conversation about a covert or classified employee, a point affirmed in an August 2004 government affidavit and the government's Guidelines Memorandum ("the information to which defendant was given access did not expressly identify Ms. Wilson as a covert agent.")

With respect to the sentencing stage, Libby's lawyers complained about the behavior of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In October 2005, Fitzgerald said (in a press conference) that he would not speak to "whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." Early in discovery, Libby's lawyers sought documents which addressed the topic and the government refused to provide the information because it was "irrelevant." The government argued Wilson's status was "not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged." In June of 2006, the court issued a discovery order which, again, emphasized that Wilson's employment was "immaterial to the preparation of the defense." In preliminary instructions to the jury, the judge said her "actual status" was "totally irrelevant" to any "assessment" of the Libby's guilty or innocence. After the trial, however, in its sentencing memo, the government adopted a "new position" - that Wilson was a "covert agent" and that Libby should be sentenced as though that fact were established at trial.

==Libby and Presidential Clemency==

Almost from the beginning of his trial the President was encouraged to pardon Libby. Among those calling for pardon were [[William F. Buckley]], Jr, [[Fred Thompson]], Cal Thomas, [[Ann Coulter]], Jack Kemp, [[Tom DeLay]].<ref>http://libbypardon.net/procon.htm</ref> and Robert Bauer, general counsel to [[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html Obama aide wants Libby pardoned], By Sam Youngman, ''The Hill'', June 14, 2007.</ref> But the trial continued and sentence was announced without presidential interference. As decisions were being made regarding the possibility of bail, many believed President Bush's hand would be forced, that he would have to grant a pardon in order to spare Libby from entering prison. <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY2MzRiNTAwZmE3NjZhMzZmODNhMTcyYjUzYzc4MjQ= "Respite for Libby?"] ''National Review'', June 14, 2007</ref>
On July 2, 2007, after a ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Libby's prison sentence couldn't be suspended as the appeals process was pursued, President Bush's hand was forced and he commuted Libby's prison sentence. This means that while Libby will serve no jail time, he will still have to pay the fine, stay on probation, and the conviction will remain on his record. <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html] "Grant of Executive Clemency, July 2, 2007",</ref> This decision was decried by Democratic Party Presidential candidates [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA.bUy89_1hk&refer=homeBush Commutes Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak Case], By Edwin Chen, "Bloomberg.com", July 2, 2007.</ref> though supported by others.

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html Libby Trial Documents]
* [http://www.scooterlibby.com/ Libby Legal Defense Fund]
* [http://libbypardon.net Pardon for Libby? Blog]
* [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988 Robert Novak on the Libby Trial]
* [http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/government/06082007.htm The Incredible Judicial Disparity: Berger v. Libby], Frank Salvato, June 8, 2007.
* [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html Libby Letters] -- letters from [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Henry Kissinger]], [[Paul Wolfowitz]], [[John Bolton]], [[Mary Matalin]], [[James Carville]], [[Peter Pace]], [[Richard Perle]], [[James Woolsey]], [[Douglas Feith]], [[Christopher Cox]], [[Leon Wieseltier]], [[Leonard Garment]], [[Alan Simpson]], [[Natan Sharansky]], [[Richard Myers]], and [[Anthony Fauci]], petition the Judge for leniency. [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyletterscomplete.pdf]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Libby, Lewis}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Talk:Tax Evasion (United States)

2007-07-12T18:01:11Z

Mtur: Spam filter prevents fixing of this page

== Spam filter prevents fixing of this page ==

For some reason, one of the links kicks in the spam filter. This makes adding the refrence section and fixing the links in the page impossible. Could a sysop please address this (either the spam filter or fix the page - spelling error, forgotten / in a close ref tag, and the references section itself) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:01, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Geology Terms P

2007-07-12T14:33:04Z

Mtur: fixing some more cases

{{Geology Index}}

[[Pahoehoe]]

[[Paleoclimate]]

[[Paleocurrent map]]

[[Paleogeographic map]]

[[Paleomagnetism]]

[[Paleontology]]

[[Paleowind]]

[[Pangaea]]

[[Panthalassa]]

[[Parent element]]

[[Peat]]

[[Pedalfer]]

[[Pediment]]

[[Pedocal]]

[[Pegmatite]]

[[Pelagic sediment]]

[[Pelean eruption]]

[[Peneplain]]

[[Perched groundwater]]

[[Peridotite]]

[[Phreatic eruption]]

[[Phreatomagmatic eruption]]

[[Potable water]]

[[Pothole]]

[[Ppm]]

[[Pratt isostatic compensation]]

[[Preferred oientation]]

[[Proto-sun]]

[[Proven reserves]]

[[Pumice]]

[[P-wave]]

[[Pyroclastic rock]]

[[Pyroclastic texture]]

[[Pyroxene granulite]]

[[Category:Geology]]

Geology Terms P

2007-07-12T14:32:16Z

Mtur: fixing case on some pages before they are created

{{Geology Index}}

[[Pahoehoe]]

[[Paleoclimate]]

[[Paleocurrent map]]

[[Paleogeographic map]]

[[Paleomagnetism]]

[[Paleontology]]

[[Paleowind]]

[[Pangaea]]

[[Panthalassa]]

[[Parent element]]

[[Peat]]

[[Pedalfer]]

[[Pediment]]

[[Pedocal]]

[[Pegmatite]]

[[Pelagic sediment]]

[[Pelean eruption]]

[[Peneplain]]

[[Perched groundwater]]

[[Peridotite]]

[[Phreatic eruption]]

[[Phreatomagmatic eruption]]

[[Potable Water]]

[[Pothole]]

[[Ppm]]

[[Pratt Isostatic Compensation]]

[[Preferred Orientation]]

[[Proto-sun]]

[[Proven Reserves]]

[[Pumice]]

[[P-wave]]

[[Pyroclastic Rock]]

[[Pyroclastic Texture]]

[[Pyroxene Granulite]]

[[Category:Geology]]

User talk:BethanyS/Contest

2007-07-12T02:45:06Z

Mtur: Complete list of moves to be done

== Ship names ==

Could you move the articles with ship names so that they are properly named according to naval conventions? See [[ship naming conventions]] for more information on this. If you have questions please ask. If not me, I recall that there is at least one former navy person as an editor. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:10, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

#[[The Abraham]] -> [[USS Abraham (1858)]]
#[[Absaroka]] -> [[USS Absaroka (1917)]] (Note: requires breaking of text into two articles)
#[[Absegami]] -> [[USS Absegami (SP-317)]]
#[[The Acacia]] -> [[USS Acacia (1863)]]
#[[Absecon]] -> [[USS Absecon (AVP-23)]]
#[[Accelerate]] -> [[USS Accelerate (ARS-30)]]
#[[Accentor]] -> [[USS Accentor (AMc-36)]]
#[[Accentor-2]] -> [[USS Accentor (AMCU-15)]]
#[[Accohanoc]] -> [[USS Accohanoc (YTM-545)]]
#[[Accokeek]] -> [[USS Accokeek (ATA-181)]]
#[[Accomac]] -> [[USS Accomac (YTL-18)]]
#[[Accomac-2]] -> [[USS Accomac (APB-49)]]
#[[Accomac-3]] -> [[USS Accomac (YTB-812)]]
#[[Acedia]] -> [[USS Aspro (SS-309)]] -- Should probably do a redirect from [[USS Acedia]] to this too.
#[[Achelous]] -> [[USS Achelous (ARL-1)]]
#[[Achernar]] -> [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)]]
#[[Achigan]] -> [[USS Achigan (YTB-219)]]
#[[The Achilles]] -> [[USS Achilles (LST-455)]] -- Should be broken into [[USS Modoc (1865)]] also
#[[Achomawi]] -> [[USS Achomawi (ATF-148)]]
#[[Acme]] -> [[USS Acme (Amc-61)]]
#[[Acme-2]] -> [[USS Acme (MSO-508)]]
#[[Acoma]] -> [[USS Acoma (SP-1228)]]
#[[Acoma-2]] -> [[USS Acoma (YTB-701)]]
#[[Acontius]] -> [[USS Acontius (AGP-12)]]
#[[Acree]] -> [[USS Acree (DE-167)]]
#[[Action]] -> [[USS Action (PG-86)]]
#[[Active]] -> [[USS Active (1779)]]
#[[Active-2]] -> [[USS Active (1837)]]
#[[Active-3]] -> [[USS Active (1888)]]
#[[Active-4]] -> [[USS Active]] (dunno about this one)
#[[Active-5]] -> [[USS Active (YT-112)]]
#[[Actus]] -> [[USS Actus (SP-516)]]
#[[Adelheid]] -> [[USS Adelheid (1903)]]
#[[Adelphi]] -> [[USS Adelphi (T-AG-181)]]
#[[Adept]] -> [[USS Adept (AFD-23)]]
#[[Adhara]] -> [[USS Adhara (AK-71)]]
#[[Adirondack]] -> [[USS Adirondack (1860)]]
#[[Adirondack-2]] -> [[USS Adirondack (1917)]]
#[[Adirondack-3]] -> [[USS Adirondack (AGC-15)]]
#[[Adjutant]] -> [[USS Adjutant (AM-351)]]
#[[Admirable]] -> [[USS Admirable (AM-136)]]
#[[Admiral C. F. Hughes]] -> [[USS Admiral C. F. Hughes (AP-124)]]
#[[Admiral D. W. Taylor]] -> [[USS Admiral D. W. Taylor (AP-128)]]
#[[Admiral E. W. Eberle]] -> [[USS Admiral E. W. Eberle (AP-123)]]
#[[Admiral F. B. Upham]] -> [[USS Admiral F. B. Upham (AP-129)]]
#[[Admiral Glass]] -> [[USS Admiral Glass (YFB-2)]]
#[[Admiral H. T. Mayo]] -> [[USS Admiral H. T. Mayo (AP-125)]]
#[[Admiral Hugh Rodman]] -> [[USS Admiral Hugh Rodman (AP-126)]]
#[[Admiral R. E. Coontz]] -> [[USS Admiral R. E. Coontz (AP-122)]]
#[[Admiral W. L. Capps]] -> [[USS Admiral W. L. Capps (AP-121)]]
#[[Admiral W. S. Benson]] -> [[USS Admiral W. S. Benson (AP-120)]]
#[[Admiral W. S. Sims]] -> [[USS Admiral W. S. Sims (AP-127)]]
#[[Admiral]] -> [[USS Admiral (1863)]] (note: please delete the redirect - its the title of an officer in the navy)
#[[Admiral-2]] -> [[USS Admiral (SP-541)]]
#[[Admiral-3]] -> [[USS Admiral (SP-967)]]
#[[Admiralty Islands]] -> [[USS Admiralty Islands (CVE-99)]]
#[[Admittance]] -> [[USS Admittance (1847)]]
#[[Adolph Hugel]] -> [[USS Adolph Hugel (1860)]]
#[[Adonis]] -> [[USS Adonis (LST-83)]] (note: please delete the redirect - its the name of a god in greek mythology, would be embarrasing to have that redirect

Note:
Acontius is listed twice under day 1 - #24 and #25.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DeborahB./Contest

2007-07-12T01:37:44Z

Mtur: List of moves to be done

User talk:BethanyS/Contest

2007-07-12T01:10:55Z

Mtur: Ship names

User talk:DeborahB./Contest

2007-07-12T01:10:39Z

Mtur: Ship names

Ship naming conventions

2007-07-12T00:52:16Z

Mtur: A place to start.

== United States Navy ==

Within the [[United States Navy]], all ships begin with the designation of USS. This was established by [[Navy Secretary]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]]. Originally the designations where:
* USF (United States [[Frigate]])
* USFS (United States [[Flagship]])
* USS (United States Ship)

Of these, only the USS remains in use.

Following the name of the ship, the [[hull classification]] and hull number are written in parentheses. If the ship was launched before the hull classification, it is often written with the year of the launch. This helps distinguish different ships with the same name. For example, the Enterprise:
* [[USS Enterprise (1799)]]
* [[USS Enterprise (1831)]]
* [[USS Enterprise (1874)]]
* [[Enterprise (SP-790)]]
* [[USS Enterprise (CV-6)]]
* [[USS Enterprise (CVN-65)]]

Fraud

2007-07-11T23:49:33Z

Mtur: properly wikify article

A fraud is a false representation of a matter of fact which is intended to deceive another.

To prove fraud in court, a [[victim]] must prove each of the "five fingers of fraud":<ref>In re Mau, 293 B.R. 919, 923 (Bankr. C.D.Ill. 2003)</ref>

# a person made a material false statement
# he knew the statement was false
# he intended to deceive the victim
# the victim justifiably relied on the false statement
# the victim was damaged

[[category:legal terms]]

Talk:Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot

2007-07-11T23:27:19Z

Mtur: Wikipedia difference #6 - jourlaism and experts

This article would look a lot nicer with more than the one source for 95% of the article.
::Untrue, I cited a church member as well. In addition, I cited the film documentary [[A Nation Adrift]] which anyone is free to purchase. I also alluded to what the San Franciso Chronicle stated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I elaborated on the San Francisco Chronicle article which condemned the attack on the church(the liberal newspaper which previously was part of the local news blackout). I added/edited the article so it says the following: Even the [[San Francisco Chronicle]] which had refused to cover the story earlier condemned the attack on the church and wrote in a editorial: "The demonstrators at Hamilton Square Baptist Church endangered not only their own cause but the cause of freedom itself."[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsNov1993.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I found a Christianity Today article today. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== A Nation Adrift ==

Does anyone have the video [[A Nation Adrift]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Can anyone could get online access to this full text article? ==

Here is something a librarian gave me and I was wondering if anyone could get online access to the full text article?

Christianity Today; 12/13/93, Vol. 37 Issue 15, p65, 1/2p, 2bw

Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: *CHURCH

NAICS/Industry Codes813110 Religious Organizations

Abstract: Presents news on church people and events. '''Criminal charges against organizers of a protest at Hamilton Square Baptist Church; Suit filed by Ebenezer Baptist Church Pastor Eugene Lumpkin against San Francisco''', California Mayor Frank Jordan; Appointment of Wesley K. Stafford as president of Compassion International; More.
ISSN: 0009-5753
Accession Number: 9405040391

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Jonathon Katz ==

The San Francisco Chronicle states the following in their November 9, 1993 edition: "Jonathan Katz, 35, of San Francisco, was cited for inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, trespassing, battery and resisting arrest -- all misdemeanor offenses." Wikipedia has an article on a Jonathan David Katz and I don't know if the two Katz's are the same individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_David_Katz The article said he was a co-founder of Queer Nation San Francisco. According to Wikipedia Queer Nation was founded in NYC because of outrage regarding anti-homosexual violence and because they believed there was prejudice in the media and arts (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation ).

Does anyone have any interest in finding out about the Jonathon Katz who was cited in regards to whether or not he went to trial and if he did go to trial was he found guilty by a jury? Also, I would be interested in knowing if that Katz is the same as the Wikipedia Jonathon David Katz. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:53, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
::I just found the following: "You can't look for explicit reference or the terms gay or lesbian," says Jonathan D. Katz, a Yale professor who heads the Larry Kramer Initiative. "You have to be alive to all sorts of possible ways of expressing things." Jonathan Ned Katz, an authority on gay history, curated the show."[http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_archive.html] It will be interesting to see if we can find out who is the Jonathon Katz who was cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:::According to Wikipedia Jonathon Ned Katz was born 1938 so if Wikipedia is right about his age and the San Francisco Chronicle is right about the age of the Jonathon Katz cited then Jonathon Ned Katz cannot be the same Jonathon Katz. Wikipedia does not give the age of Jonathon David Katz but says he got his PHD in 1996. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia difference #6 - jourlaism and experts ==

In [[Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] I asked about how that point meshes with articles such as these. Is there any chance of getting a response there? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:27, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?

2007-07-11T23:12:46Z

Mtur: /* No */ a response.

{{debate-project}}

Obviously copyrighted material should not be plagiarized/stolen, and this debate focuses more on a quote from Aschlafly has been thrown around a lot lately:
<blockquote>Joaquin, one good type of resource that I want you to be aware of is this: United States government websites. Because we funded those websites as taxpayers, there is no copyright protection and we can almost always copy information from them without attribution or restriction. If the information is unbiased, as in scientific terms or information about countries or numerous other topics, then copying from those websites is fine. The same is not true for state websites (e.g., California or Florida), because they often do assert a copyright. Also, there may be prohibitions on copying certain US government images, such as the emblem for a division of government like the CIA.</blockquote>

Is there a problem with this method of adding content to Conservapedia?

==No==

We are going for quantity not quality. Although out first [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]] says ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia<ref>It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue.</ref> or elsewhere unless it was your original work.'' But recently we have decided that ''cut and paste in haste'' from .gov sources is fine<ref>"We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites."[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=216373&oldid=216298].</ref> if you add a reference after what you copied. Do not copy from out of copyright versions of Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia did that early on in order to up its article count. That's [[liberal]] [[deceit]] we don't do deceit. Remember we [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|encourage conciseness here]] so don't copy more than a few sentences. We usually just copy what most people know already so we don't overburden them with [[ignorance|too much knowledge]]. Remember don't add a ''stub template'' like at Wikipedia because that implicitly encourages long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fact&direction=next&oldid=45426 facts].

<references/>

: In copying from public domain works that are secondary sources of information, it still lacks references to primary sources of information. For example, for [[Bangust]], http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm is a secondary source of information. It was not eye witness accounts but rather an accumulation of them. There are many statements made in there that are pulled from primary sources that are not attributed and the secondary source itself is not a verifiable reference. For those, you need to go to primary sources such as http://www.bangust.com/ . With this massive copy and paste effort underway, this attention to primary sources is being lost. Ultimately, it will take more time to clean up this (adding links to legal terms, finding references for statements made in military histories) than it would have been just to sit down and write it in the first place.
: Another point to be made is that if Conservapedia is striving to be the source of information for people to go to, quality can never take a secondary position to quantity. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
As far as I understand, Conservapedia exists to provide a conservative viewpoint. However, many of the articles being created during this Team Contest are simple glossary information that really can't be spun one way or the other (take [[User:Crocoite/Contest|Crocoite's copying of volcano terminology]], for example). It seems like with the limited editors that Conservapedia has, it would be a better use of editors' time to develop their own articles about topics that ''can'' be spun by liberals rather than just copy neutral information. Additionally, copying information just adds one more place where it has to be kept up to date. Now it's doubtful that volcano terminology is going to radically change any time soon, but there are many topics that do change often, and all that users will find on Conservapedia about those topics will be outdated information from the original copy instead of the updated information at the source. This is especially true if people copy over pages that no editor here is qualified to maintain. Finally, as more and more information is copied over, this problem just gets more and more complicated since there is more information that can potentially change more and more often.

Since Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, I feel that articles on Conservapedia should be original work based on facts rather than straight copy and pasting. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

USS Barr (DE 576)

2007-07-11T23:00:57Z

Mtur: Previous edit was linking to the wrong page

Barr (DE 576) was laid down on 5 November 1943 at Hingham, Mass., by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co.; launched on 28 December 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Cora Dell Barr, Pfc. Barr's mother; and commissioned on 16 February 1944, Lt. Comdr. Henry H. Love in command.

Following shakedown off Bermuda and escort training at Casco Bay, Maine, the destroyer escort reported to Norfolk for antisubmarine duty in the Atlantic off the Cape Verde Islands. She operated as part of a hunter-killer group built around Block Island (CVE 21) and also composed of Ahrens (DE 575), Eugene E. Elmore (DE 686}, and Buckley (DE 51). Throughout May, this task group followed up submarine reports, chasing down sonar contacts that usually proved to be fish or debris. On 6 May, Buckley rammed and sank an enemy submarine, verifying that the waters of the South Atlantic did hide enemy submarines.

On 29 May, while closing a reported submarine, Block Island suffered a torpedo hit. Barr pursued the U boat, later identified as U 549, until around 2030 when a torpedo struck her too. The explosion wrecked the ship aft of the No. 2 engine room, killing four of her crew, injuring 14, and leaving 12 missing. Throughout the night, Barr stayed dead in the water while Robert I. Paine (DE 578) patrolled around her. Eugene E. Elmore took Barr's injured and about half of her crew on board, hooked up a towline to the damaged escort and began the journey to Casablanca, Morocco. Wilhoite (DE 397) relieved Eugene E. Elmore; and the Dutch tug, Antic took over and finally towed Barr into port six days later.

Barr stayed in drydock at Casablanca until 2 July while the wreckage of her damaged stern was burned off, spaces cleared of oil and debris, and stern plates welded on for the trip home. On 3 July, Cherokee (ATF 66) began the long voyage to Boston with Barr in tow. After a brief stop in Bermuda to avoid a major tropical storm, the ships arrived at the Boston Navy Yard on 25 July.

The destroyer escort spent the next three months in drydock being refurbished and converted to a high speed transport. Redesignated APD 39, Barr sailed for Norfolk on 3 November for boat training, and departed that port on the 15th as escort for Teton (AGC 14). After transiting the Panama Canal and stopping in San Francisco to load more cargo, she and Cecil (APA 96) sailed westward and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 9 December.

In Hawaii, Barr shuttled between Pearl Harbor and Maui, where she trained with Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT's) for night and day demolitions and shore bombardment. On 10 January 1945, Barr set sail for Ulithi, the main staging area for the invasion of Iwo Jima. There from late January to early February, the fast transport loaded supplies, made repairs, and took part in demolition and reconnaissance training on reefs east of Ulithi. On 10 February, Barr and the other APD's stood out of the lagoon at Ulithi with the Iwo Jima invasion force. The transports rehearsed D day movements at Tinian on the 12th and 13th. Then, the advance group headed for Iwo Jima on the 14th. Barr arrived off the southern end of the island on 16 February; and, that afternoon, her embarked UDT 13 successfully completed its first mission. The team placed a navigational light on the hazardous Higashi Rocks despite coming under enemy fire. Barr, however, solved the problem, silencing that gunfire with some of her own.

The next morning, following intense shelling by fire support ships and aircraft, the fast transports approached the eastern beaches for reconnaissance by the UDTs. During the afternoon, they made a reconnaissance of the western beaches in the same manner. On 18 February, Barr received orders to land her UDT on the Higashi Rocks again to reposition the light before retiring for the night. As she and Blessman (APD-48) pulled away from the island, a Japanese bomber flew over Barr, crashed Blessman, and caused many casualties.

Barr spent D day, 19 February, in transport areas about 6,000 yards off the eastern beaches. Her boats, manned by UDT frogmen, assisted in guiding marines to the landing beaches. Then, until 3 March, the high speed transport took screening station at night and anchored during the day while UDT's worked with the beachmasters to remove underwater obstacles. On 4 March, Barr departed Iwo Jima and steamed via Saipan and Guam to Ulithi where she anchored on 12 March.

For the next week, the fast transport prepared for the invasion of Okinawa. On the 21st, she stood out of Ulithi as part of the Gun Fire and Covering Force under Rear Admiral Morton L. Deyo. The warships arrived off Okinawa on 25 March and approached Kerama Retto to reconnoiter the southwestern tip of Tokashiki. During the next four days, Barr put UDT 13 ashore on Keise Shima, a group of small sand and coral islands between Kerama Retto and Okinawa, to gather information and blast passages through the reef for the LST's.

The Japanese maintained an almost constant aerial onslaught in the early days of the invasion. Barr did not close Okinawa on D day, 1 April, but remained in the transport area as a part of the antisubmarine screen. She transferred UDT 13 to Wayne (APA 54) on 6 and 7 April and continued screening until 9 April, when she sailed to Saipan for a week of repairs.

Barr got underway again on 23 April to escort a convoy of LSTs and LSMs back to Okinawa. The fast transport remained off the Hagushi anchorage providing antiair and antisubmarine defense until 27 May, when she headed for Saipan as a convoy escort. Leaving the convoy at Saipan, Barr continued on to the Philippines, visiting Leyte and Manila before joining the screen of an Okinawa-bound convoy at Lingayen Gulf. The fast transport resumed screening duties at Okinawa after her return late in June.

After Japan capitulated on 15 August, Barr rendezvoused with HMS King George V and HMS Gambia east of Tokyo, embarked Royal Marines from the two British warships and landed them at Yokosuka. After this mission, she proceeded to the north end of the bay to evacuate Allied prisoners of war from central Honshu. During several trips, the fast transport received on board 1,135 former POW's. After the evacuation was completed, Barr made one mail run to Iwo Jima between 24 and 28 September and then remained in port at Tokyo until 12 October, when she was ordered to Nagasaki for duty with the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. She served there as a base of operations and as a barracks ship until 1 December when she began the voyage to the United States.

The transport arrived at San Diego on 19 December and, after voyage repairs, continued on to the east coast where she was placed out of commission, in reserve, at Green Cove Springs, Fla., on 12 July 1946. Barr remained in the Atlantic Reserve Fleet until the early 1960's. Her name was struck from the Navy list on 1 June 1960, and she was sunk as a target off Vieques Island on 26 March 1963.

Barr received three battle stars for her World War II service.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/barr-i.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Talk:USS Bangust

2007-07-11T22:41:57Z

Mtur: For those wishing to do more research on this ship

Website for the ship with information, crew histories, photographs and such. http://www.bangust.com/ --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:41, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

USS Bangust

2007-07-11T22:35:16Z

Mtur: Please link to the ship page rather than the index page

Bangust (DE-739) was laid down on 11 February 1943 at Los Angeles, Calif., by the Western Pipe and Steel Co.; launched on 6 June 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Stephen W. Gerber; and commissioned at her builder's yard on 30 October 1943, Lt. Comdr. Charles F. MacNish, USNR, in command.

After fitting out, Bangust reported for shakedown training on 21 November 1943, and conducted these operations from San Diego. Deemed ready to join the fleet upon the completion of her shakedown on 18 December, Bangust underwent post-shakedown availability at the Naval Drydocks,San Pedro, and ultimately reported to Commander, Western Sea Frontier, for duty on 9 January 1944, as she cleared San Pedro for San Francisco. Departing thence on 13 January for Hawaiian waters, in company with Reynolds (DE-42), Bangust arrived at Pearl Harbor on 19 January.

Bangust--flagship for the Commander, Escort Division (CortDiv) 32--sailed on her first escort mission on 25 January. She stood out of Pearl Harbor in company with Pastores (AF-16), Ajax (AR-6), and Wadleigh (DD-689), all bound for the Ellice Islands. The task unit was dissolved when it arrived in Funafuti on 2 February, and Bangust continued on to the Gilbert Islands that same day. The destroyer escort reached Makin on the 5th and then moved to Tarawa the next day.

On 8 February, she sailed in company with Greiner (DE-37) to rendezvous with Caliente (AO-53) and three merchantmen for the voyage to Majuro in the Marshall Islands. Bangust and Greiner, however, received new orders on the 10th that sent them back to Tarawa, where they arrived that same day. After that false start, the warship got underway again on the 18th with elements of Marine Night Fighter Squadron--VMF(N)--532 embarked. She rendezvoused with Fleming (DE-32) and Anacapa (AG-49) and then headed for Kwajalein in the Marshalls. Bangust and her travelling companions made Roi at Kwajalein on the 21st, and the two escorts returned to Tarawa on the 24th.

Assigned to the Commander, Task Group (TG) 57.7 on 1 March for local escort and patrol duties, she operated in the immediate vicinity of Tarawa harbor until 7 March 1944. Between 8 and 18 March, Bangust's embarked division commander served as senior officer present afloat (SOPA) at Tarawa, and the warship remained anchored there during that time. Soon thereafter, on 19 March, Bangust joined Eisele (DE-75) to escort LST-29 to Apamama lagoon, arriving the same day.

Three days later, Bangust, along with Eisele, sailed for Pearl Harbor as escort for Kenmore (AK-221), De Grasse (AK-223), and LST-29. Relieved of this duty later the same day, however, Bangust was ordered to proceed to Majuro instead. Reaching Majuro on the morning of 24 March, the destroyer escort received a hunter-killer assignment from the Commander, Service Squadron (ServRon) 10. The destroyer escort arrived on the scene of an earlier submarine attack and conducted antisubmarine warfare operations in the area until returning to Majuro on the 27th.

Two days later, Bangust escorted fleet oilers to a fueling rendezvous with the fast carriers carrying out Operation "Desecrate One," the carrier support for the unfolding operations against Hollandia, Dutch New Guinea. Returning to Majuro on 5 April after having completed her mission, Bangust then departed the Marshalls on 10 April, escorting Kaskaskia (AO-27) out of those waters before being detached from that duty to return to her base of operations.

Back at Majuro on 14 April, Bangust spent the next few weeks engaged in a succession of local escort missions between Majuro and Kwajalein, taking LST-119 to Kwajalein between 18 and 19 April, shepherding Capable (AM-155) and ATR-44 to Majuro between 21 and 23 April, and standing out to rendezvous with Grouper (SS-214) to escort that ship into Majuro on 26 and 27 April. Operating on harbor entrance patrol on 29 and 30 April, Bangust then joined Waterman (DE-740) and Weaver (DE-741) in putting to sea on 3 May to fuel at sea from TG 50.17 before returning the same day. Escorting Lackawanna (AO-40) out of local waters on 4, 5 and 6 May, the destroyer escort then returned to Kwajalein on the 8th. Shifting back to Majuro on the 10th, Bangust lingered there until she sailed for Hawaiian waters on the 16th.

Arriving at Pearl Harbor on 22 May, Bangust entered the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard the following day and underwent repairs and alterations there until 3 June. Among the items of work accomplished were alterations to sound gear, her SL radar, and repairs to the ship's auxiliary boiler. She sailed for the Marshalls on 4 June, proceeding independently. At a point some 60 miles from her destination, Roi, Bangust's radar picked up a contact at 2325 on 10 June 1944. Having received no reports of any Japanese or Allied submarines on her projected track, the destroyer escort tracked the contact continuously until the ship's lookouts spotted a ship emerging from a rain squall off the starboard bow at 2345. Poor visibility made identification difficult; but, as the range narrowed to 300 yards, Bangust's lookouts deemed the stranger as either a small surface craft or a submarine.

After the radar "pip" disappeared at 2348, Bangust stood toward the contact and fired a spread of starshell to illuminate the area, but without result. Just past midnight, Bangust gave the underwater challenge, which drew no response, and then launched four successive "hedgehog" barrages, the last of which triggered a series of six explosions. After these had subsided, another, larger, explosion shook the ship. That shock indicated to the destroyer escort's sailors that she herself had been torpedoed. Damage control parties immediately set about their task but only found a small leak in the forward engine room where a weld had been started. Aft, torpedomen checked the depth charge racks, thinking that a "K-gun" might have been fired accidentally, but found no charges missing. The ship's sonar operator then reported hearing two additional, but rather weak, explosions, along with hissing and gurgling noises. A strong smell of diesel oil hung in the air in the vicinity of the final attack. Postwar accounting would confirm that Bangust sunk RO-111. Bangust lingered in the area, continuing the search until 1700 on 11 June. Greiner, accompanied by the motor minesweepers YMS-282 and YMS-203 and the submarine chaser SC-1364 arrived on the scene and relieved Bangust of hunter-killer operations so that she could resume her voyage to Roi, which she reached later the same day.

After serving on harbor entrance patrol off Roi on 13 June, Bangust joined Capps (DD-550) and Weaver to screen a convoy bound for Eniwetok. Reaching that place on the 15th, the destroyer escort refueled and rejoined the convoy soon thereafter, heading towards the Marianas. Arriving in the fueling area established in the waters east of Saipan, Bangust covered the oilers as they carried out their vital logistics service to the fleet until 20 June. At that time, she was detached to escort three of the petroleum carriers back to Eniwetok. Reaching her destination with her charges on the 24th, the destroyer escort remained there until the 29th, when she assumed harbor entrance patrol duties off the entrance to Eniwetok.

Dropping anchor back at Eniwetok on 30 June, Bangust remained there until the 13th, when she joined Capps and Weaver in providing cover for the departure of Neosho (AO-48) and Lackawanna. On 15 July, she joined TG 50.17 and soon operated in the vicinity of the Guam and Saipan, screening the oilers keeping the "fleet that came to stay" fueled during the operations to capture Guam. Completing this duty on 23 July, Bangust escorted her charges back to Eniwetok, arriving there three days later.

Underway for the Marianas again, this time in company with Whitman (DE-24), the destroyer escort rejoined TG 50.17 in the fueling area off Saipan on 2 August. A sound contact on 3 August enlivened her tour with the logistics ships this time around, as she conducted hunter-killer operations in hopes of nabbing her second enemy submarine. A five-charge pattern fired at the contact yielded no result; however, so she abandoned the hunter-killer work and rejoined the convoy.

Bangust, John D. Henley (DD-553) and Fair (DE-35) were detached on 11 August and ordered to anchor at Saipan. Later assigned duty as off-shore patrol, Bangust operated in this role on the 12th. Following her relief the following day, the warship served a brief tour of screening duty with CortDiv 65. Upon completion of that work, she returned to Saipan in company with Acree (DE-167).

Bangust screened a convoy to Eniwetok without incident between 16 and 19 August and, then, enjoyed a brief period of upkeep and availability from 20 to 25 August in Eniwetok Atoll. During this time, Commander, CortDiv 32 shifted his command pennant from Bangust to Waterman on the 23d. Underway again on the 26th, Bangust escorted a convoy to Manus, arriving there on the 31st. There, she replenished, and her ship's company carried out voyage repairs between 1 and 9 September. After conducting escort missions for another oiler unit, the warship set course for Seeadler Harbor, arriving there on 15 September.

Underway again three days later, Bangust escorted three task units, again composed of oilers, to a fueling rendezvous with the warships of the 3d Fleet, joining TG 38.3 on 26 September. Then assigned to TG 30.8, the warship escorted a task unit back to the Admiralties, reaching Manus on 1 October. Bangust underwent more voyage repairs and preparations for her next operations until the 9th and then sailed in company with Mascoma (AO-83) on the 10th, bound for Kossol Passage.

Reaching her destination on the 13th, Bangust dropped anchor and remained there until the 18th, when she got underway in company with Niobara (AO-72), bound for the Admiralties. Reaching Manus on 21 October, the destroyer escort then sailed in company with Swearer on the 25th, escorting a task unit bound for the Western Carolines. The ships reached Ulithi on 28 October without incident. Bangust remained at Ulithi for the next several days, pulling several tours of local off-shore patrol duty before her departure on 12 November as escort for a fueling group bound for a rendezvous with the fleet.

Following this tour, Bangust plane-guarded for Nehenta Bay (CVE-74), before being detached to carry out other screening duties before she received orders to Ulithi on 22 November. Reaching her destination on the 24th, the warship resumed duty as CortDiv 32 flagship on 28 November. At sea on 10 December with TG 30.8, the destroyer escort turned back the same day, arriving at Ulithi on the 11th for repairs to her sound gear.

On 12 December 1944, Bangust commenced a tour of escort duty with the 3d Fleet. On 18 and 19 December, a typhoon damaged a number of ships and sank three destroyers. Bangust stood by the battered destroyer Aylwin (DD-355) during the night of the 18th, and later took part in search efforts to locate survivors of two of the three destroyers that had sunk, Spence (DD-512) and Hull (DD-350), giving up the search on the 23d.

Proceeding back to Ulithi, Bangust reached her destination on Christmas Day 1944. Two days later, the Commander, CortDiv 32 shifted his pennant to Kyne (DE-744). Bangust sailed from Ultihi on 3 January 1945 as escort for another refueling group but turned back after only a day and saw Chikaskia (AO-54) safely back into Ulithi for repairs on the 5th. Underway once more on the 7th, Bangust entered Leyte Gulf on the 14th, and the Sulu Sea the following day, before she ultimately joined up with TG 30.8 on the 16th in the South China Sea. Proceeding thence to Ulithi via Leyte Gulf, Bangust reached her destination on the 18th. From there, she shepherded the oiler Neches (AO-47) to San Pedro Bay, Leyte.

Bangust got underway for a fueling rendezvous on the 21st in company with Neches, and joined up with other fleet oilers and escorts en route. Detached along with Tomahawk (AO-88), Merrimack (AO-37) and Crowley (DE-303), the destroyer escort was ordered to proceed to the Western Carolines, dropping anchor in Ulithi lagoon on 25 January. Four days later, Commander, CortDiv 32 broke his pennant in Bangust.

After completing voyage repairs, Bangust sailed on 8 February 1945 with elements of TG 50.8, a fueling group, and the oilers in this unit fueled the ships of TGs 58.1, 58.4 and 58.5 on 19 February, and TGs 58.2 and 58.3 on the 20th. Departing the task group on the 21st, Bangust then escorted a task unit back to the Western Carolines, reaching Ulithi on the 23d, where she immediately joined another task unit, and ultimately rejoined TG 50.8 on 26 February. She returned to Ulithi on 5 March.

Bangust returned to the forward areas on 25 March, conveying the vital oilers to their rendezvous with the fast carrier task groups of Task Force (TF) 58. The warship screened in and around the fueling areas until detached on 5 April. Returning to Ulithi on the 9th, the ship underwent voyage repairs at that fleet base until the 16th, when she resumed her operations with the oilers fueling the ships taking part in the operations off Okinawa. Joining TG 50.8 on 19 April, Bangust operated on antisubmarine screening station and carried out plane guard duties as required.

Detached on 7 May, Bangust sailed for Guam and reached Apra Harbor on the 10th. Closing out her availability a day early, the warship got underway on 20 May to rendezvous with TG 50.8--later redesignated TG 30.8--on 24 May. Convoying a task unit of oilers to the fueling rendezvous, Bangust remained at sea with these logistics ships until 7 June, when she was detached to proceed to Guam. Arriving at Apra Harbor on the 10th, the warship then underwent minor repairs and maintenance, replenished ammunition, and provisioned while her crew enjoyed a period of recreation. On 23 June, Bangust made the short run from Guam to Saipan and remained there, awaiting further orders, through 3 July 1945.

On 4 July, Bangust sailed in company with the escort carriers Admiralty Islands (CVE-99), Hollandia (CVE-97), Thetis Bay (CVE-90) and Roi (CVE-103), and their screen, Reynolds (DE-42), McClelland (DE-750) and Thorn (DD-647), to rendezvous with TG 30.8--the task group assigned the job of logistics support to the fast carriers of TF 38, during the strikes on Tokyo and other areas of northern Japan. After making the rendezvous on 5 July, Bangust operated with TG 30.8 until detached on 18 to return to Ulithi, where she arrived on 23 July. Underway on 25 July 1945, Bangust carried out an antisubmarine sweep to cover the exit of the heavy ships from Ulithi, and then proceeded to sea to join TG 30.8 on 29 July.

Following Japan's mid-August capitulation, Bangust remained at sea with TG 30.8. On 27 August, having already embarked a prize crew, she headed for a rendezvous point to take the surrender of Japanese submarine I-14. Escorted by four General Motors FM "Wildcat" fighters and Murray (DD-576), Bangust made the rendezvous the following day.

Leaving I-14 off Sagami Wan on 28 August, Bangust moved alongside the submarine tender, Proteus (AS-19), inside Sagami Wan proper to disembark the crew of the Japanese submarine; on 30 August, the destroyer escort then fueled from Mascoma (AO-83). Underway for Tokyo Bay on 31 August 1945, Bangust arrived there later the same day. She paused there only briefly, however, for she sailed the following day for Saipan, reaching her destination on 5 September. Underway two days later, Bangust, in company with Kyne, shaped course back to Japan with a convoy of four merchantmen. Reaching Tokyo on 13 September and delivering her charges, the destroyer escort shifted to Yokosuka Ko the following day.

Bangust sailed for the United States on 2 October 1945 in company with other ships in her division and, after a brief stop at Pearl Harbor between 10 and 13 October, reached San Pedro on 20 October. Reporting to Commander, Western Sea Frontier, for two weeks maintenance and onward routing, Bangust departed the west coast on 6 November. Reaching the Canal Zone on 16 November, the destroyer escort transited the Panama Canal and departed Panama waters on the 17th, bound for the east coast of the United States.

The destroyer escort reached the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard on 22 November 1945 and, after pre-inactivation overhaul, was decommissioned on 14 June 1946 at Green Cove Springs. Earmarked for deferred disposal status on 21 March 1947, Bangust was taken to Charleston Naval Shipyard in June 1947. Towed there by Challenge (ATA-201) on 17 and 18 June, the ship remained in the yard until 13 August when, under tow of Tunica (ATA-178) she was taken back to Mayport, Fla., arriving the next day. Inactivated on 20 October 1947, Bangust was transferred to the government of Peru on 26 October 1951 under the terms of the Mutual Defense Assistance Program (MDAP). Her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 18 April 1952. She was renamed Castilla (D.61) and served as such into the 1970’s.

Bangust earned 11 battle stars for her World War II service.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

USS Bancroft (DD-256)

2007-07-11T22:31:23Z

Mtur: links and fact tags

(Destroyer No. 256: dp. 1,215 (n.); l. 314'4½"; b. 31'8"; dr. 9'9 3/4" (aft); s. 35 k.; cpl. 120; a. 4 4", 2 3", 12 21" tt.; cl. Clemson)

The second Bancroft ([[Destroyer]] No. 256) was laid down on 4 November 1918 at Quincy, Mass., by the [[Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.]]; launched on 21 March 1919; sponsored by Miss Mary W. Bancroft; and commissioned on 30 June 1919, Lt. Comdr. Harvey S. Haislip in command.{{fact}}

Upon commissioning, Bancroft conducted her shakedown cruise and then joined the [[Atlantic Fleet]] for normal training evolutions. However, in less than five months, she was placed in commission, in reserve. With a [[skeleton crew]] embarked for maintenance purposes, the destroyer remained in a state of semi active unreadiness for a little more than 30 months. She descended to complete inactivity on 11 July 1922 when she was decommissioned and berthed with the reserve fleet at Philadelphia. She remained there for more than 17 years.{{fact}}

On 1 September 1939, [[Germany]] ignited [[World War II]] with its invasion of [[Poland]]. On the 6th, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a neutrality patrol to keep the war out of the western hemisphere. Since the patrols called for more warships than were then active with the Atlantic Squadron, Bancroft was refurbished and recommissioned on 18 December 1939, Lt. Ernest St. C. Von Kleeck, Jr., in command. Initially assigned to the West Gulf Patrol, based at Galveston, Tex., the destroyer continued that assignment for about nine months, to enforce the President's proclamation of United States' neutrality and to keep open warfare out of the western hemisphere.{{fact}}

After the fall of [[France]] early in the summer of 1940, many Americans President Roosevelt among them came to regard the maintenance of [[England]]'s resistance as essential to American security. Accordingly, he sought ways to support the British war efforts. One of the measures he adopted was the trade exchanging 50 overage destroyers to the British Commonwealth in return for bases in the western hemisphere on British colonial soil. Bancroft was one of the destroyers chosen for the trade.{{fact}} She was decommissioned on 24 September 1940 at [[Halifax, Nova Scotia]], and simultaneously transferred to the [[Royal Canadian Navy]].

That same day, she was renamed [[HMCS St. Francis]] and commissioned in the Royal Canadian Navy, Lt. Comdr. C. A. Rutherford, RCN, in command.{{fact}} During the remainder of the year, she operated out of Halifax completing her shakedown training and patrolling the western leg of the Halifax convoy routes. Her most notable mission during that time came after the 5 November attack on Convoy HX 84 by the German "pocket battleship," Admiral Scheer, that resulted in the sinking of five merchant ships and the armed merchant cruiser HMS Jervis Bay. St. Francis was among the numerous Commonwealth warships sent out in the fruitless search for the German raider.

On 15 January 1941, the destroyer departed Halifax on her way to the [[British Isles]]. She arrived in the Clyde estuary on the 26th and became a unit of the 4th Escort Group based at Greenock, Scotland. St. Francis escorted convoys into and out of the Clyde. On one occasion on 20 May 1941 she rescued the officers and crew of [[SS Starcross]] that took a torpedo from a German U-boat and sank far out at sea to the southwest of Britain.{{fact}}

Those duties lasted until July 1941 when she returned to North America as a unit of the Newfoundland Escort Force. For the next two years, St. Francis again patrolled the western legs of the [[North Atlantic]] convoy lanes. She made several attacks upon supposed submarine contacts but scored no confirmed kills. In June 1943, the destroyer again recrossed the Atlantic to Great Britain. She served in Escort Group C2 of the Western Approaches Command until August when she transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy's 9th Escort Group based at Londonderry in Northern Ireland. That assignment lasted only a few weeks for, in September, St. Francis returned to Halifax as a unit of the Western Local Escort Force. During a refit completed early in 1944, the warship's machinery was found to be so worn that she was declared unfit for service against the enemy. Thereafter, she was used as a training ship at Digby, Nova Scotia.

On 1 April 1945, St. Francis was declared surplus. On her way to Baltimore to be scrapped by the Boston Iron & Metal Co. in July 1945, she sank as a result of a collision off Cape Cod, Mass.{{fact}} Her former name, Bancroft, had been struck from the American Navy list on 8 January 1941.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bancroft-ii.htm]</ref>

See also [[Bancroft-I]], and [[Bancroft-III]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

USS Bancroft (DD-256)

2007-07-11T22:29:05Z

Mtur: Link to CORRECT page for refrence

(Destroyer No. 256: dp. 1,215 (n.); l. 314'4½"; b. 31'8"; dr. 9'9 3/4" (aft); s. 35 k.; cpl. 120; a. 4 4", 2 3", 12 21" tt.; cl. Clemson)

The second Bancroft (Destroyer No. 256) was laid down on 4 November 1918 at Quincy, Mass., by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.; launched on 21 March 1919; sponsored by Miss Mary W. Bancroft; and commissioned on 30 June 1919, Lt. Comdr. Harvey S. Haislip in command.

Upon commissioning, Bancroft conducted her shakedown cruise and then joined the Atlantic Fleet for normal training evolutions. However, in less than five months, she was placed in commission, in reserve. With a skeleton crew embarked for maintenance purposes, the destroyer remained in a state of semi active unreadiness for a little more than 30 months. She descended to complete inactivity on 11 July 1922 when she was decommissioned and berthed with the reserve fleet at Philadelphia. She remained there for more than 17 years.

On 1 September 1939, Germany ignited World War II with its invasion of Poland. On the 6th, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a neutrality patrol to keep the war out of the western hemisphere. Since the patrols called for more warships than were then active with the Atlantic Squadron, Bancroft was refurbished and recommissioned on 18 December 1939, Lt. Ernest St. C. Von Kleeck, Jr., in command. Initially assigned to the West Gulf Patrol, based at Galveston, Tex., the destroyer continued that assignment for about nine months, to enforce the President's proclamation of United States' neutrality and to keep open warfare out of the western hemisphere.

After the fall of France early in the summer of 1940, many Americans President Roosevelt among them came to regard the maintenance of England's resistance as essential to American security. Accordingly, he sought ways to support the British war efforts. One of the measures he adopted was the trade exchanging 50 overage destroyers to the British Commonwealth in return for bases in the western hemisphere on British colonial soil. Bancroft was one of the destroyers chosen for the trade. She was decommissioned on 24 September 1940 at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and simultaneously transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy.

That same day, she was renamed HMCS St. Francis and commissioned in the Royal Canadian Navy, Lt. Comdr. C. A. Rutherford, RCN, in command. During the remainder of the year, she operated out of Halifax completing her shakedown training and patrolling the western leg of the Halifax convoy routes. Her most notable mission during that time came after the 5 November attack on Convoy HX 84 by the German "pocket battleship," Admiral Scheer, that resulted in the sinking of five merchant ships and the armed merchant cruiser HMS Jervis Bay. St. Francis was among the numerous Commonwealth warships sent out in the fruitless search for the German raider.

On 15 January 1941, the destroyer departed Halifax on her way to the British Isles. She arrived in the Clyde estuary on the 26th and became a unit of the 4th Escort Group based at Greenock, Scotland. St. Francis escorted convoys into and out of the Clyde. On one occasion on 20 May 1941 she rescued the officers and crew of SS Starcross that took a torpedo from a German U-boat and sank far out at sea to the southwest of Britain.

Those duties lasted until July 1941 when she returned to North America as a unit of the Newfoundland Escort Force. For the next two years, St. Francis again patrolled the western legs of the North Atlantic convoy lanes. She made several attacks upon supposed submarine contacts but scored no confirmed kills. In June 1943, the destroyer again recrossed the Atlantic to Great Britain. She served in Escort Group C2 of the Western Approaches Command until August when she transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy's 9th Escort Group based at Londonderry in Northern Ireland. That assignment lasted only a few weeks for, in September, St. Francis returned to Halifax as a unit of the Western Local Escort Force. During a refit completed early in 1944, the warship's machinery was found to be so worn that she was declared unfit for service against the enemy. Thereafter, she was used as a training ship at Digby, Nova Scotia.

On 1 April 1945, St. Francis was declared surplus. On her way to Baltimore to be scrapped by the Boston Iron & Metal Co. in July 1945, she sank as a result of a collision off Cape Cod, Mass. Her former name, Bancroft, had been struck from the American Navy list on 8 January 1941.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bancroft-ii.htm]</ref>

See also [[Bancroft-I]], and [[Bancroft-III]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Talk:Politics of science

2007-07-11T20:31:46Z

Mtur: Additional material for article

== Additional material for article ==

[http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-11-voa10.cfm Former US Surgeon General Complains of Political Pressure] (from Voice of America)
:President Bush's former chief public health educator has told members of Congress he was repeatedly pressured to adhere to the administration's political agenda.

:Richard Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee Tuesday that he was not allowed to speak out on stem-cell research, sex education and other issues. He said anything he tried to say that didn't fit the administration's political agenda was ignored, marginalized, or simply buried.

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 1944

2007-07-11T19:13:07Z

Mtur: fix closing tag

President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] was chosen by his party as the Democrat to win the Presidency. He was exhausted and reluctant to go onto another term in office, but accepted. Nevertheless he still thought, "All that is in me cries out to go back to my home on the Hudson River, but we of this generation chance to live in a day when its future existence and the future existence of our chosen method of government are at stake." The success in ending the depression and the seeming upcoming victory of [[World War II]]. <ref> [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], by Alice Osinski, Children's Press, 1987, p. 82. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:1944, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category: United States presidential elections]]

Adroit-2

2007-07-11T18:24:45Z

Mtur: Links, facts, and formatting, link to proper page (why can't the original contributors take the time to do this?)

== Adroit (first incarnation) ==
Adroit (SP-248)—a [[steam yacht]] built in 1907 at City Island, N.Y., by Robert Jacobs—was acquired by the Navy sometime late in 1917 from Mr. F. H. McAdoo of New York City.{{fact}} After she had begun fitting out under the direction of Lt. H. B. Peschau, NNV, Adroit was found to be highly unseaworthy and of extremely short cruising range.{{fact}} Consequently, she was never commissioned and was returned to her owner on 30 April 1918.{{fact}} Presumably, her name—which had appeared on the Navy list— was stricken from that list soon thereafter. {{fact}}

== Adroit (second incarnation) ==
The second Adroit (MSO-509) was laid down on 18 November 1954 at Boothbay Harbor, Maine, by Frank L. Sample, Jr., Inc., as AM-509; redesignated MSO-509 on 7 February 1955; named Adroit on 17 May 1955; launched on 20 August 1955; sponsored by Mrs. Alice G. Olsen, the wife of Capt. Eliot Olsen; and commissioned on 4 March 1957, Lt. Comdr. J. G. Nemetz in command.{{fact}}

Following commissioning, Adroit completed fitting out and then moved south to Charleston, S.C.{{fact}} From that port, she conducted shakedown training in the [[West Indies]] and in the local operating area.{{fact}} The minesweeper then began a period of almost 17 years of service with the [[Atlantic Fleet Mine Force]]. During that time, she provided services for several Navy organizations— most notably the [[Naval Mine Defense Laboratory]] (after 1971, the Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory) at Panama City Fla., the Naval Ordnance Laboratory Test Facility at Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., and the Mine Warfare School at Charleston, S.C. In addition, Adroit participated in Gordon Cooper's Project "Mercury" space shot in May 1963 and helped the Naval Oceanographic Office to conduct a test in March of 1970. The [[minesweeper also made occasional deployments to both the Mediterranean Sea and the West Indies. During her tour of duty with the 6th Fleet in the summer of 1958, she earned the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal as a result of service off the coast of strife-torn Lebanon. For the most part, however, normal operations such as exercises and goodwill port visits occupied her time overseas.{{fact}} While serving in home waters, she concentrated on type training, independent ship's exercises, regular overhauls, and repair periods.{{fact}}

The character of Adroit's Navy career changed significantly midway through 1973. That summer, she received word of her reassignment to naval reserve training duty and of a change of home ports from Charleston to Newport, R.I.{{fact}} She departed Charleston on 24 September and arrived in Newport on the 28th. The minesweeper spent the remainder of her Navy career training naval reservists. She operated along the east coast participating in a number of exercises—most frequently independent ship's exercises and amphibious assault training. In August of 1977, her base was changed to Portsmouth, N.H., whence she operated for more than four years. Early in October of 1981, Adroit changed home ports once again—from Portsmouth, N.H., to Little Creek, Va. As of December of 1987, she was still operating from the Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va.{{fact}} <ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3/adroit-ii.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Talk:Advance-3

2007-07-11T18:19:09Z

Mtur: Fixing link to wrong page

== That refrence that is linked to ==

Consistently, these ship reports have been linked to an index page rather than the paticular page for the ship - http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3-list.htm rather than http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3/advance-iii.htm . In this case for the ship, it was linked to the ''wrong'' index page http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a2-list.htm . For future pages, please link to the ship itself rather than the index page. It is rather embarrassing to have a link to a reference that doesn't show anything about the boat in question. Thank you. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:18, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Advance-3

2007-07-11T18:18:41Z

Mtur: That refrence that is linked to

== That refrence that is linked to ==

Consistently, these ship reports have been linked to an index page rather than the paticular page for the ship - http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3-list.htm rather than http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3/advance-iii.htm . In this case for the ship, it was linked to the ''wrong'' index page http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3-list.htm . For future pages, please link to the ship itself rather than the index page. It is rather embarrassing to have a link to a reference that doesn't show anything about the boat in question. Thank you. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:18, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Advance-3

2007-07-11T18:16:33Z

Mtur: Links, fixing format, refrence to the RIGHT spot, and fact tags.

The third Advance—a [[motorboat]] constructed for the Coast Guard in 1917 at North Tonawanda, N.Y., by the [[Richardson Boat Co.]]—was taken over by the Navy and commissioned on 6 June 1917.{{fact}} Advance was assigned to the [[9th Naval District]] section patrol; and, although few documents recording her service have survived, she probably spent the entire period of America's involvement in World War I cruising the [[Great Lakes]].{{fact}} The Coast Guard assumed custody of Advance on 28 August 1919; and, presumably, she continued duty on the Great Lakes.

[[Coast Guard]] records reveal that, by 1 January 1923, her permanent duty station and base of operations was Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.{{fact}} On 6 November of that year, Advance was renamed AB-1. On 27 May 1924, the motorboat suffered a gasoline explosion, burned, and sank at Sault Ste. Marie.{{Fact}} Raised and repaired, she returned to active service by 20 August 1924.{{fact}} Four days later, she departed Sault Ste. Marie and proceeded to Chicago, 111. AB-1 spent the next 38 months based at Chicago and finally headed back to Sault Ste. Marie on 15 October 1927. She apparently passed the remainder of her Coast Guard career there. Her name disappeared from the Coast Guard register in 1940.{{fact}}<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a3/advance-iii.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-07-11T18:09:23Z

Mtur: /* Solar variation and global warming */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a "liberal falsehood" can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]] 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think another point of dispute is what global warming actually is. Is it a real problem of the planet getting inexorably warmer, or just the rising part of a regular (or irregular) warming/cooling cycle? It's not that long since the alarmists were telling us that we were headed for another ice age! The term "global warming" doesn't suggest the latter, so depending on just what the term means, I would suggest that some ''do'' dispute whether it (the former definition) is a real phenomenon at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Liberal bias, as it has just been changed to, sounds much better. Falsehood sounded like too big an elephant to chew. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Learn together! I am so use to people calling me an idiot or disagreeing with anything I do, I will save this post of yours! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy's reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re-write Time.... ==

Has anyone actually read this article? Not with an eye towards editing it, but from the POV of someone seeking information? I doubt it. It is overly technical and wordy, cumbersome, IMO. Sort of what one gets via committee, lol. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed direction ==

I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.

Of course the response will be to point out the poor quality of the models, as done on the Climate models page, and the rare and unusual level of current solar activity per Solanki, and how poorly solar activity is understood per Foucal (sp?).

There is also a possible significant and underappreciated role for aerosols, with the trend from solar dimming to solar brightening, in the late 80s and 90s.

I am not sure what the purpose of the "Natural variability of the climate system" section is, it doesn't go anywhere, and the information it describes is not particularly controversial. Even scientists who don't "believe in global warming" accept the ices ages.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 02:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Creationary scientists don't believe in multiple [[ice age]]s, regardless of whether or not they believe in global warming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Wouldn't that be covered by a note or sentence in the body, Philip? I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines. Being that we have many who are YEC's, we need to strive more for inclusion, rather than exclusion, by at least noting where some Christians differ, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, but it is covered by the commandment that says every article must be true and accurate! :-)
::Seriously, as far as I'm aware, there is no YEC POV in this article. What there has been, however, are anti-YEC beliefs presented as true. For example, stating that there have been multiple ice ages over millions of years is an anti-YEC (and anti-biblical) POV. All I have done is qualify any matter-of-fact statements that assume an anti-YEC position so that they are not presented as undisputed truth.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I was mainly addressing the bringing up of the ice ages themselves, the section doesn't seem to be serving a relevant purpose. Separately, labeling everything purported to be older that 6000 years "evolutionary", seems a bit paranoid and fearful, as if the "believer" might be seduced by the evidence if not properly fortified with a warning. We are not serving the broader conservative community by projecting this appearance.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I've got no objection to removing any reference to YEC ideas, as long as old-Earth/evolutionary ideas are also removed. If there is no need for the section with the mention of ice ages, I'm happy for it to go.
::::Labelling everything older than 6000 years as "evolutionary" is an attempt to avoid it being written as though the old ages are correct. If there's a better way of doing that, I've no objection. But I don't want any part of the article to be written as though hundreds of thousands or millions of years is just accepted to be correct. That would be like me asking an evolutionist to accept it being written it as though the Earth was only 6000 years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*This is a place Andy needs to consider and post in. Personally, I agree with you, Africangenesis. But Andy is the man, so I will point him this way. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:31, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:The "Natural variability of the climate system" section has no purpose that I can see. There is a role for the glacial ice core data, that has been cited by both sides. Those pro-global warming cite the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the ice cores. The skeptics point out that the temperature rises PRECEDED the CO2 rises. It is pretty much a wash, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned. This section doesn't deal with either argument. The "evolutionary" label was used elsewhere in the article, not just in this section. I think it will detract from the perceived quality of our work. Frankly, it was so unusual to see in this context, that I didn't know what to make of it at first.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I can understand. However if you or I subscribed to the Young Earth Creationist's POV, you would. So better we put this to the boss, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

----

=== YEC POV Or Not? ===

TK said: "I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines." This is very important point for CP and I'm happy to see that this question is rising to be topic in earnest discussions. It is fair and clear for users (both editors and readers) to say that this site is limited to YEC articles - or to leave other possibilites for views in articles if decided so. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Thanks. But the answer seems to have been given by PhilipR, just after my post, which you quote.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:53, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

::I want to discuss this topic not only to decide what is the contents of this article but how different views are handled in CP. Is this site for YEC? Does this site say directly it is? Or is this site going to be something else - wider views... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:14, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservapedia does not suppress the YEC view, but neither does it endorse the YEC view, nor the evolutionary view. So statements that are worded as though the evolutionary view is correct will be changed so as to read that it is the evolutionary view rather than fact, but the evolutionary view is still allowed. Is that clear enough? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Direction of research efforts==

Cut from intro:

:The focus of the science surrounding global warming has been to determine whether it is the result the natural internal variability of the climate, or due to other influences such as solar or human activity.

Is it determining ''whether'' or trying to prove ''that'' the recent warming trend is man-made? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:It is supposed to be the former, but has become a religion so certain that its issue is urgent and that its thesis will ultimately prevail, that some of the WG1 authors are willing to suppress contrary evidence perhaps seeing it as a mere blip in the road and to exploit general ignorance of the subject with simplistic fear mongering.

:Some of it is simple denial, if you had spent two and a half years and millions of dollars of computer time, would you want your "projections" of the future climate based on GHG scenerios relegated to a mere intellectual exercise by a simple study such as Roesch's (see [[Climate model]]). The models are 5 or 10 years away from being accurate enough to attribute and project a 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance. There is the distinct possibility that 5 or 10 years from now, they will still be 5 or 10 years away. --[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:44, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:38, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Equilibrium and Energy Imbalance ==

This is the name of a new section I'm not yet ready to write. What I intend to point out is the climate commitment studies of Wigley and Meehl, that show that most of the surface temperature response to a change in forcing, occurs within a few decades, but the energy imbalance continues, even after the initial response of the land surface and the top layer of the ocean, for centuries and can be continuing even after a thousand years, as heat is either stored into or released from the deep oceans. Since there has probably never been a thousand years without a volcanic eruption or some variation in solar activity beyond the 11 year cycle, the climate has never been in equilibrium, and thus is ALWAYs changing, either warming or cooling, and there is always an enery imbalance. Cites from Hansen and Pielke and others will quantify the current imbalance. (its much smaller than the documented errors in the models of course).

Since the plateau in solar activity that was reached circa 1940 is continuing (per Solanki), to this day, some of the energy imbalance must be attributable to this new (in equilibrium terms) solar forcing that has not yet had time to equilibrate. Attribution can get trickly. There was a midcentury 50s to 80s, cooling that was probably due to aerosols, so what is the subsequent warming to be attributed to? It is to be attributed to the reduction in aerosols or to a resumption of the climate's equilibration to the continuing level of solar forcing, which had merely been delayed by the aerosols? And greenhouse gas increases contributed as well. It is not an easy pie to cut. I think the climate commitment studies tell us that a solar contribution cannot be denied, nor a contribution from the earlier greenhouse gas increases. Transient forcings such as volcano eruptions don't get attribution unless they are currently occurring and what we are trying to attribute is currently occurring.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 04:50, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variability ==

I also intend a section where solar variability and cycles are discussed. I think we should prominently feature Solanki's statistical work, based on analysis of proxies of past solar activity, that shows that the current high plateau in solar activity has only an 8% probability of lasting until the year 2050. We also should have some acknowledgement of solar conveyor theory which predicts that the next cycle will be active, but the following cycle is expected to be unusually low. Then some discussion of the multidecadal and centuries long cycles. The 1470 year cycle gets us into the ice core record however, it is difficult to detect in the interglacials but probably persists there, the climate just isn't near a tipping point that allows its signature to be recorded, like it is during the ice ages. The cosmic ray link should also be discussed, but the scientific support, like also that for the solar conveyor theory is very preliminary, and should be identified as such.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Try this columnist ==

Someone might find something useful for this article in [http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/ this newspaper column]. Actually, if you want to trawl through his blog, you might find more stuff, such as a link to [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616 this site] showing pictures of a high-qual..., er, a weather station. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Stop Politicizing ==

*I removed several gossipy bits. Polls showing what non-expert citizens "think" are gossip. Since most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia? Speculation about how some possible legislation, at some point in the future, might effect Exxon-Mobile, is just plain crap as well. It is a given that the UN's panel was politicized, as its members were appointed by the governments involved, usually without some panel of experts recommending who to appoint. Please stop introducing material that explains away this fact. This article will now remain locked, and you can request a sysop to unlock it for editing, or post your wanted additions here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::Using this precedent, I would like to request that the part of creationism article named "Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus" be abridged so that it is only the "Scientific Community Consensus" section now, as well as the "adherenets and opponents of creationism" be removed because according to you "most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia?" And creationism really is all about the science behind it, right? Not the faith, even if it is a tenant of many a religion.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

*You are out of line, posting about some other article here. Take your trolling someplace else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Union of Concerned Scientists ==

This article cites a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists which foundthat many scientists studying global warming had come under political pressure to alter their findings. The article takes it out of context to make it seem like this pressure is coming from the United Nation, when in reality that pressure is within the US Federal Government, i.e. the Bush administration. Conservapedia does not include a reference. Here is the study it was referring to: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html

Also, it should be noted that only one "hockey stick" graph has been discredited. Here is a link to several more that confirm the general "hockey stick" shape: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

== Read the Sunspots ==

The following article was posted at http://www.projectalberta.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=34667&highlight=#34667

'''The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling'''

''R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Wednesday, June 20, 2007''

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 meters below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

© National Post 2007

Source; http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

== Self-Induced Warming ==

'''Fiddler On The Roof
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY'''

Posted 6/22/2007

Climate Change: The problem with warming predictions may lie in how we measure the present. Can we say that 2006 was the warmest year ever when the temperature is being measured mere feet from air conditioning exhaust?

We are all familiar with the scenario. Junior wants to stay home from school so he holds a match under a thermometer and then runs to mom to say he has a fever. We don't think it's deliberate, but something similar may be happening with our weather-monitoring methodology.

In January, the folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the "fact" that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental United States. This was based on daily temperature data gathered by NOAA's National Climactic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.

Where these stations are and what is in the vicinity can make a difference. NOAA admits that stations have been moved and modernized as technology and the locales change. '''They provide input to the computer climate models that warming alarmists use to predict the day after tomorrow.'''

Bill Steigerwald of FrontPageMagazine.com reports on an enterprising former TV meteorologist in Chico, Calif., Anthony Watts, who wondered about the accuracy and reliability of these stations and a system that has been in use since the early 1900s.

So Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out, about 40 so far. They found one station in Forest Grove, Ore., that stands just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent. Another station in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.

Watts has set up a Web site (http://www.surfacestations.org) to chronicle and document his group's findings. Watts observes: "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

America is a lot more urbanized than it used to be. Lots of concrete and asphalt have been poured. Big cities full of tall buildings have gotten bigger and what greenies call urban sprawl continues. These cities are natural "heat islands" that can not only affect the weather but how we measure it. And if some urban dweller wants to put an A/C unit next to a station that records temperature on his property, what's to stop him or her?

In case you missed the headline in the New York Times, NOAA went back and updated its 2006 report based on "revised statistics." This is not unusual. NOAA does try to do its own station-checking to reflect changes in the station environments.

The result was that 2006 was determined to be the second-warmest year "on record."

The year 1998 still holds the honor. At an annual average temperature of 59.4 degrees Fahrenheit it was actually some 0.08 degrees cooler.

Warnings of imminent climate doom are based on computer models that are often based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather and climate. One of those variables is temperature, and it needs to be measured accurately.

Otherwise, as the computer geeks say: garbage in, garbage out.

== Fahrenheit and Celsius ==

I believe it would make for a better article if we don't switch from one to the other. I would recommend either using one, or putting the values for both in each instance where temperature change is sited. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

*I agree, and believe Ed will as well. Please make the changes, if you've a mind to. I have opened it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::I would like everything to be in English units, because our readership is primarily Americans and most Americans are unfamiliar with the [[metric units]] used in Europe and elsewhere abroad. We can supply metric equivalents in braces, as needed.

::Another advantage of Fahrenheit is it shows how imprecise the measurements and predictions are. There's only been one degree of warming, and it's not even very precisely measured. The "[[error bars]]" are bigger than the increase! In other words, temperature can only be measured within an accuracy of 3 or 4 degrees, while the 1 degree average increase is tiny in comparison.

::It is only in industrial countries like the U.S. that accurate measurements are kept, which leads into the concept of [[temperature trend]]s, the maintenance of [[weather station]]s, the "contamination" of the [[urban heat island]] effect and so on. Did you know that Atlanta (called "Hotlanta" by one US government website) is more than 5 degrees hotter than the surrounding rural countryside? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. See the info I just inserted above....very telling. I wonder how many measuring stations in London, Madrid, Rio and the like have the same conditions? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::According to liberals (and Kyoto Protocol supporters) the [[Urban heat island effect]] is of little significance and has been properly accounted for.

::According to scientists, the 5 degree rise of Atlanta has ''not'' been accounted for. There's also a trend in California.

::The "contamination" of the [[temperature record]] rivals the supposed "human contribution" - but it can't explain it all away. Only liberals (and other cheaters) would dare to make a claim like that (see [[hockey stick graph]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Politics of global warming==

Cut from article:

: and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Does it "appear so to them", or are they making a claim whose scientific accuracy they don't know or care about?

And do environmentalists actually believe their own claims, or do they promote their alarmism for ulterior motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

* http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_513219.html --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:32, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== False claims of consensus? ==

Firstly, for me it seams that it was year 1989 not 1992 when the poll was made, atleast according to the link you gave, and that is 18 years ago, which is 'huge' time in cases like this. Secondly it gives no refrenses to the study itself and personally couldnt find it from elswhere either. So, i suggest that this entry would be removed atleast untill better source is given and mention added that the study is out of date and a lot has happened in allmost 20 years. For a more reasent study i suggest the one puplished in science which gave completely diffrent result and should be offcourse the one to point out the current attitudes toward global warming, not study made allmost 20 years ago and which atleast i cant find from anywhere. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 15:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::As i don't hear any objections, ill go ahead and remove the entry. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 15:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't some other place. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:21, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, i don't quite understand what you mean? i see you reverted the deletion, but why? As said, there was no citation to the "study" and even if there where one, it would be 18 years old, IPCC was found in 1988 so that study would be really out dated, even more so when more reasent studyes are available, why should this study be used instead of those if not blatantly to push POV, and in a way that is clearly deceitful. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::And i see you locked the article, i don't see why, im not intrested on revert wars, so don't bother because of me, but i would like to hear some reasons for the revert. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::But we are not interested in ''attitudes'' about global warming - but what scientists who study the climate actually ''think'' about it. If you want to help me write a spin-off article on the [[Politics of global warming]], we can write about the attitudes expressed on the editorial pages of general scientific journals like ''Nature'' and ''Science''. But this article is only about what climatologists say.

:::We should quote specific climate scientists like [[Richard Lindzen]] and [[Fred Singer]]. If some recent graduate from a PhD program (like [[Michael Mann]]) wants to present a counter-argument, that's okay too - but we should not accept his new ideas if they run counter to the scientific consensus ''and'' they "cherry-pick" the data to omit evidence which disproves his ideas.

:::There is a lot of [[liberal bias]] on social science and environmental science - not to mention psychology, economics, religion, history, etc. We cannot be trustworthy if we report liberal ideas as if they were objective. They are not: they have an agenda, and a "dedication to reality at all costs" is in no way part of that agenda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Attitudes? uhm... The article in science is study made by Naomi Oreskos, Science magazine which happens to be one of the most respected science journals just published his work. And that study was based on 928 papers made from global warming by many diffrent climatologists. Allso there are several IPCC reports affirming the consensus and over 30 scientific societies and academies of science agree, actually '''all'''of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Under this overhelming amount of evidence, i can't see how some one can actually claim that a allmost 20 year old study to which there are no refrences should be used to show the current attitude towards global warming among climatologists. There is just no way anyone can justify that, its platant POV pushing. When the IPCC report at 2001 concluded that there was around 66%-90% certanity that the warming was caused atleast partly by human actions, the latest report said it to be over 90%, So you can only imagine how much has happened in 18 years and how much the attitudes have changed. If that raport referred by Lindzen actually existed and said what he claimed, im sorry, it's not you, but i have hard time trusting Richard Lindzen after reading some of his comments about smoking and cancer.

Lastly i have to say that i really hope you can have open enough mind to get out from gategoricing things as liberal facts and conservative facts, there are no such things, just facts that should be packed by evidence no matter what way they point or does it fit into your political views. Mayby science and it's findings seam liberal because the world is that way. For me, the whole american liberal/conservative thing seams actually quite odd, none of the other countryes i have worked or lived have had such controversy. More i read this site the more i wonder if there is any field in science that dosen't conflict with the world view this site promotes. And im really worryed about that. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:53, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

#Oreskes is not a "him", and her bias was already noted by Peiser, et al.
#''Science'' is not an objective source - they have rejected papers which passed peer review elsewhere, purely on the ground that the contents would "not be of interest to their readers". A journal whose readers would not be interested in a paper which contradicts what everyone wants to believe precisely because ''the readers don't want to hear anything that contradicts their preconceptions'' is not a good source for an encyclopedia article.
#The IPCC's bias is well known; it's a creature of the UN.
#National academies are creatures of their own governments.
#Anyway, science is not decided by votes. Rather it requires evidence and reasoning. To verify whether a theory is true or false, see [[Scientific method]].
#I agree that ''facts themselves'' are not liberal or conservative. The problem is that liberals and conservatives disagree on what the facts are. The [[hockey stick graph]] of Michael Mann is a case in point. The IPCC used his version of the temperature record ''precisely for the reason you condemned'', i.e., because it fit into their political views: i.e., they want to endorse the [[Kyoto Protocol]].
#Science is not liberal; rather, liberals distort scientific findings; they ignore anything that contradicts their world view.
#This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like ''Science'' journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular ''authority'' endorses an idea.
#If you're "really" worried about people who [[appeal to authority]] instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, here is my lenghty response in return :)
# Peiser has taken back most of his critisism and states that he no longer doubts that overhelming majority of climatologists think that current global warming is caused by man. [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf]
# I can only say that you don't share that opinnion with many people. Science magazine is higly respected amongst the scientists. And offcourse they reject articles that have passed peer review, there would be thousands of scientists wanting their work to be published by science, but it has limited resources. The fact that it can't publish everything sent to it dosen't mean that the articles published would be any less credible if anything, just the opposite, they should reprisent cream of the crop. Allso, it should not matter where the study was published, as long as it's sourced right and you can observe the study itself and draw your own conclusions.
# So, an conspiracy theory, that UN and IPCC would be out there to get US? And like most conspiracy theoryes, it really dosen't make any sense. What in earth could UN gain from it? How could they convince all the scientists to join this conspiracy without exposing it? Why would any scientist want to join them? Im sorry, but for me it seams like just an attempt to discredit them with vague accusations when there are not enough facts to do it.
# And National academies of science are just one part of the great conspiracy?
# True, most popular view isn't necesarily the right one, but it usually tells a lot when so many professionals dedicated to research that particular field of science come to same conclusion. It's not wise to just ignore that.
# Hmm, what other options and research there was beside the hockey stick graph that the IPCC ignored? I don't think that any scientists, even the most skeptic ones doubt anymore the fact that the climate is getting warmer, the question just is why.
# Thats just and generializing attack against all liberals without any evidence. I could make same kind of empty claims about conservatives and we wouldn't get anywhere.
# This one really deserves and through out answer, because here i think you are doing just the opposite what you are preaching. Lets see, you want and reliable source, i offer science magazine, one of the most respected scientific magazines, you in other hand offer some unknown website. You want me to cite a specific study, which i have all along done, the specific study is the one made by Oreskes and to which you can find citation from the science article. You offer a study that has no author that we know, there is no refrence to the whole study no where to be found and if there was, it would still be 18 years old. You want me to tell what they observed, which is just what i did, they observed that the papers they studyed showed there to be widly accepted consensus amongs climatolgist that the global warming was caused by man. On your study there isn't much to observe as i can't find even an abstract from it, but if one can trust the unknown website you offered, it shows that 18 years ago the scientists in American Meteorological Society where divided if not sceptical about the global warming. What it dosen't of course mention as it's that old is that in 2003 that same organisation published an statement concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003)). So i can't really understand, why that article of yours got to the conservapedia entry, if you claim to have such a high criteria on what you trust, Unless it's because it supports your world view.
# That is exactly what im trying to do. I dont think that the current article is accurate in any way, atleast the part we are discussing now.

But during the whole discussion we have had about this subject, you haven't answered anything to my enquiryes to why you are willing to use that source of yours, when there is no citation to it, no reasearh to be found and it's so old that it can't be in anyway considered to be representing the current views on the subject. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not going to answer all your points, because this is not a debate page. We are trying to improve the global warming article, that's all.

:Oreskes did not read 928 articles but only their abstracts. And she is not a disinterested analyst but an advocate of "action" on global warming.

:But if you have some information of the absolute number of scientists (or a percentage from a survey) who give partial or full credence to the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]], that would be good to have. Please supply a summary, with a reference.

:However, that properly belongs in [[Politics of global warming]] because polls and surveys are not science. Science is facts, along with theories which explain them. (Note that a 'model' which has been tweaked to fit a period of a few decades is not a theory.)

:And if you ''really'' want to help, you can explain all about [[albedo]], [[cosmic ray]]s, [[sunspot]]s, [[solar variation]], and the various natural [[climate cycle]]s. We need to know about these first, before we can judge the extend of the human contribution. Would you care to help in this way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that Oreskes her self believes the global warming to be caused by man anyways lessen the value of her reasearch? i once again ask, if the author of your investigation was neutral? oh wait, we don't even know who he was, but we know that the person who claims this reasearch to show something is all but neutral. You are allso moving the goal posts as we move along, first you want peer reviewed cited studyes which addres the consensus on the global warming, when i give you those you no longer think them valid but demand studyes made from invidual scientists, like that would have any change on the subject. There are over 160 countryes that have ratified the kyoto protocol, the joint science academies agreed on the consensus on 2005, All the known academies of science agree on the consensus and have publically announced so, the only science academy ever to doubt human produced global warming (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, suprise suprise) is changing their view as "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members" After that there are no notable or known academies to disagree. It's mind blowing that some one in situation like this can even suggest that there wasn't consensus. Where would all those doubtfull scientist be? They arent members of any academies? they don't make any studyes on the subject? There are offcourse few invidual scientist who disagree, as there allways is, but they are tiny part of the picture. And most of even them agree that they are on the opposing side of the concensus, like Peiser did...

But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:How does the fact that some scientist who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming have (1) "taken money" from Big Oil or (2) are "aligned" with Bush or the conservative movement?

:You profess disgust, but is this political (because science is in sharp disagreement with the treaty ratifiers)? Or do you have some information about the Earth's climate which only liberals know?

:Do you think that this encyclopedia should publish scientific work only by people who agree with you, or who are neutral? That is not our policy, because one-sided views aren't trustworthy. We publish the truth, even when it disagrees with the mainstream of liberal thought.

:You are free to ignore the peer-reviewed, published studies cited by Singer, Lindzen, etc. Even a ''novelist'' like [[Michael Crichton]] has found out about peer-reviewed, published studies which disagree with the liberal POV.

:But an encyclopedia cannot afford to censor the truth. We'll leave that to moribund publications such as Wikipedia, which makes a cottage industry out of intellectual dishonesty.

:Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence ''in favor'' of [[AGW]], please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.

::I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of '''facts''' for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which ''interprets'' facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you ''must'' present the facts. [[User:Simple|Simple]] 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

Ed, it seams to me that it's allmost impossible to get you to talk about the subject in hand, which was your claim on the article pages, that there is no consensus over global warming amongs scientists. You have in no way commented my critisism towards your source and age of the study nor have you commented in any way the other evidences i provide. You just keep ranting on liberal bias where there clearly is none to be found, just you trying to defend an entry that in no intelligable way can be defended. That is i presume allso the reason why you don't respond to me.

I allso got debressed when i read forward on the article, it's filled with same kind of mistakes, that are so blatant that they must be deliberatly made, for example in the talk about the "hockey stick" chart, to which you put too much emphasis anyways, it's in no way specially important to the study of global warming, you "forget" to mention that there has been response to all the critisism, and actually McKitrick and McIntyre are the ones who have some explaining to do. and thats not all, the Hockey stick graph has been defended afterwards by National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. There is allso a new study by Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, who have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found that the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. i put the link to that study down below. So i hope all these facts get to the article as well, as they should if this site really tryes to be truthfull. But all this can wait, please answer first to my questions about the global warming consensus and then we can continue to this subject. [http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up ][http://alba.jrc.it/blog/climate/?p=61] [http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf] [http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/wall-street-journal-op-eds-distorting_06.html] [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Frank zappa

2007-07-11T18:04:59Z

Mtur:

Why the protection? I can understand that the name is wrong (it should be [[Frank Zappa]] instead), but it is quite possible to write a reasonable article on the individual without touching any copyrighted works. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:I guess because someone posted copyvio and there's no article to redirect it to. It's impossible to lock an empty article in mediawiki without using some sort of workaround. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a [[Frank Zappa]] article (bearing in mind that I'm still kind of learning the ropes around here). [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:58, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

If you are willing to make a good entry I will unprotect it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:00, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

: I personally am not a Zappa fan, and don't believe I could do the article proper justice. However, because a previous contributor plagiarized copyrighted material does not mean that the article should be locked for future contributors. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-07-11T18:02:56Z

Mtur: Solar variation and global warming

Talk:Frank zappa

2007-07-11T17:55:33Z

Mtur: New page: Why the protection? I can understand that the name is wrong (it should be Frank Zappa instead), but it is quite possible to write a reasonable article on the individual without touchi...

Albert Einstein

2007-07-11T17:53:31Z

Mtur: /* False attributions */ fact tagging

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was a theoretical physicist. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany in a Jewish family. During his stay at the Swiss Patent Office Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that President Franklin D. Roosevelt develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate pacifist. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of Israel, but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*IN 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he had formulated his special [[theory of relativity]]. [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*THE SCULPTOR Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.
*:"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough." [ibid]

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: "The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton." Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: "Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/]</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2007, NASA reported early results from their satellite Gravity Probe B, confirming 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' Einstein's assertion that large objects such as the Earth distort the fabric of space and time.<ref> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html</ref> The Gravity Probe B project, a joint mission between NASA and Stanford University, used the most precise gyroscopes ever manufactured to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society said: 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, E=mc², the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,'

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass and you release a huge amount of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). What Einstein did was to provide a theoretical framework that accounted for the release of energy, and a quantitative theory that was used by the scientists at Los Alamos who designed and built the bomb.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. His citation did not mention relativity.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harve had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remains with Harvey.{{fact}}

==Religion==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to Time magazine in this manner: “I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>

Which shows that while Einstein rejected the traditional personal God of Judaism and Christianity, he did believe in the existence of higher power(s).

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein do not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archieved in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Whatever his views on Zionism were, Einstein has always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== False attributions ==
Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call special relativity. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein.{{fact}} He did not discover the Lorentz transformation, or the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. He was not the first to propose that the speed of light is constant for all observers,{{fact}} or that the aether is superfluous and not observable. He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity.{{fact}} He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional spacetime in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.{{fact}}

Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2<ref>H. Poincare published it in 1900. [http://www.serve.com/herrmann/ein.htm]</ref> as a consequence of special relativity, or to foresee its application to nuclear binding energies or antimatter annihilation. He did not foresee a nuclear chain reaction and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an atomic bomb.

Einstein did not originate the idea of using metric tensors to reconcile gravity with special relativity.{{fact}} It was not his idea to describe gravity in covariant equations, and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible.{{fact}} He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity, and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the expansion of the universe,{{fact}} the possibility of black holes,{{fact}} or dark energy.

Einstein never developed a unified field theory of any significance.{{fact}} He published papers on quantum mechanics, but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources." 

==References==
<references/>

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists|Einstein, Albert]]

Irve Lewis Libby Jr.

2007-07-11T17:50:18Z

Mtur: Adding in trivia about Libby representing Marc Rich.

[[Image:Hdy567.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr.''' is a former deputy Secretary of Defense, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor and private Attorney to Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Libby was born in New Haven, [[Connecticut]]; his father was an investment banker.<ref>[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051031/31libby.htm "A Rough Road For 'Scooter'?"], Kenneth T. Walsh</ref> Various sources report that he has been rather secretive about his actual first name, and that the initial "I." stands for Irving.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4965501 "Guarding the 'I' in I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby"], Mike Pesca, National Public Radio, October 19, 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201439.html "In the Spotlight And on the Spot: Scooter Libby, Backstage No More"], Mark Leibovich, [[Washington Post]], 23 October, 2005.</ref> According to interviews, he first acquired his nickname "Scooter" as an infant, when his father, after seeing him move quickly across his crib, described him as "a scooter".<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/27/politics/main989970.shtml "Libby: Lawyer, Adviser, Author:] Cheney's Chief Of Staff Both Political Insider And Acclaimed Novelist", Stephen Smith, [[CBS News]], [[28 October]], [[2005]]</ref>

He previously served as the attorney of Marc David Reich, whom was convicted of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran, and was then given a full pardon by [[Bill Clinton]] in Janurary, 2001.

==Valerie Plame case==
Libby was convicted on four counts and his sentence was later commuted. The convictions were on:

*Obstruction of Justice (intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA);
*Making a False Statement (intentionally giving the FBI false information about a conversation he had with [[Tim Russert]]);
*Perjury (knowingly providing false testimony about a conversation he had with Russert and knowingly providing false testimony about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment).
He was found not guilty on an additional charge, that he gave false statements to the FBI about his conversation with ''Time'' magazine reporter Matt Cooper.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/ MSNBC]</ref>

Libby testified that he learned about Plame from the White House about a month before Russert told him in a phone conversation, and that he told Russert he didn't know about Plame. Russert testified that Plame was not mentioned in the phone call, and documents showed that it was unlikely that Libby had forgotten about Plame. Libby did not testify at his trial, and it is not known how he would have resolved the apparent contradictions.

Although the U.S. Probation Office recommended a sentence of 15-21 months, Judge Reggie B. Walton (appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush) sentenced Libby to thirty months in jail and a fine of $250,000 on June 5th, 2007.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial Yahoo News]</ref>

==Response to Conviction and Sentence==

Libby's lawyers repeatedly emphasized that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was disclosed by columnist Robert Novak in July of 2003 and that Novak's "primary sources" were Richard Armitage (former deputy Secretary of State) and Karl Rove (a presidential advisor) ... not Scooter Libby. In addition, a CIA spokesperson, Bill Harlow, confirmed the information about Plame's CIA employment to Novak.

It was also noted that the overwhelming evidence from the FBI and grand jury investigations and the trial proceedings shows that neither Libby nor the numerous other government official who discussed Ms. Wilson's employment believed she was covert, or that her employment status was classified. As a result, none of the five witness who testified that Libby discussed Plame with them suggested that they felt that they were having a conversation about a covert or classified employee, a point affirmed in an August 2004 government affidavit and the government's Guidelines Memorandum ("the information to which defendant was given access did not expressly identify Ms. Wilson as a covert agent.")

With respect to the sentencing stage, Libby's lawyers complained about the behavior of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In October 2005, Fitzgerald said (in a press conference) that he would not speak to "whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." Early in discovery, Libby's lawyers sought documents which addressed the topic and the government refused to provide the information because it was "irrelevant." The government argued Wilson's status was "not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged." In June of 2006, the court issued a discovery order which, again, emphasized that Wilson's employment was "immaterial to the preparation of the defense." In preliminary instructions to the jury, the judge said her "actual status" was "totally irrelevant" to any "assessment" of the Libby's guilty or innocence. After the trial, however, in its sentencing memo, the government adopted a "new position" - that Wilson was a "covert agent" and that Libby should be sentenced as though that fact were established at trial.

==Libby and Presidential Clemency==

Almost from the beginning of his trial the President was encouraged to pardon Libby. Among those calling for pardon were [[William F. Buckley]], Jr, [[Fred Thompson]], Cal Thomas, [[Ann Coulter]], Jack Kemp, [[Tom DeLay]].<ref>http://libbypardon.net/procon.htm</ref> and Robert Bauer, general counsel to [[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html Obama aide wants Libby pardoned], By Sam Youngman, ''The Hill'', June 14, 2007.</ref> But the trial continued and sentence was announced without presidential interference. As decisions were being made regarding the possibility of bail, many believed President Bush's hand would be forced, that he would have to grant a pardon in order to spare Libby from entering prison. <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY2MzRiNTAwZmE3NjZhMzZmODNhMTcyYjUzYzc4MjQ= "Respite for Libby?"] ''National Review'', June 14, 2007</ref>
On July 2, 2007, after a ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Libby's prison sentence couldn't be suspended as the appeals process was pursued, President Bush's hand was forced and he commuted Libby's prison sentence. This means that while Libby will serve no jail time, he will still have to pay the fine, stay on probation, and the conviction will remain on his record. <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html] "Grant of Executive Clemency, July 2, 2007",</ref> This decision was decried by Democratic Party Presidential candidates [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA.bUy89_1hk&refer=homeBush Commutes Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak Case], By Edwin Chen, "Bloomberg.com", July 2, 2007.</ref> though supported by others.

== Trivia ==
* Libby was the represented [[Marc Rich]] from 1985 to 2000. Marc Rich was one of the individuals pardoned by [[Bill Clinton]] which lead to significant controversy.

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html Libby Trial Documents]
* [http://www.scooterlibby.com/ Libby Legal Defense Fund]
* [http://libbypardon.net Pardon for Libby? Blog]
* [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988 Robert Novak on the Libby Trial]
* [http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/government/06082007.htm The Incredible Judicial Disparity: Berger v. Libby], Frank Salvato, June 8, 2007.
* [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html Libby Letters] -- letters from [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Henry Kissinger]], [[Paul Wolfowitz]], [[John Bolton]], [[Mary Matalin]], [[James Carville]], [[Peter Pace]], [[Richard Perle]], [[James Woolsey]], [[Douglas Feith]], [[Christopher Cox]], [[Leon Wieseltier]], [[Leonard Garment]], [[Alan Simpson]], [[Natan Sharansky]], [[Richard Myers]], and [[Anthony Fauci]], petition the Judge for leniency. [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyletterscomplete.pdf]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Libby, Lewis}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-07-11T17:44:15Z

Mtur: Journalistic sources?

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Hearsay

2007-07-11T03:25:10Z

Mtur: links

Hearsay consists of statements by a [[witness]] who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as [[evidence]] in [[court]].
[[category:legal terms]]

Hostile witness

2007-07-11T03:24:22Z

Mtur: links

A hostile witness is a [[witness]] whose [[testimony]] is not favorable to the party who calls him or her as a witness. A hostile witness may be asked leading questions and may be [[cross-examine]]d by the party who calls him or her to the stand.
[[category:legal terms]]

Bursitis

2007-07-11T02:49:13Z

Mtur: linkd

'''Bursitis''' is inflammation of a [[bursa]] sac. The inflammation may result from [[arthritis]] in the joint or injury or infection of a bursa. Bursitis produces pain and tenderness and may limit the movement of nearby joints.

Bursitis can occur in the shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, heels and big toe. Injuries, overuse and repetitive stress are common causes of bursitis. Certain diseases, such as arthritis and [[gout]], might also cause it.{{fact}} It sometimes occurs with [[tendinitis]].<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/bursitis.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Carcinoid tumors

2007-07-11T02:48:22Z

Mtur: links and fact tags

'''Carcinoid tumors''' are rare, slow-growing [[cancer]]s that usually start in the lining of the [[digestive tract]] or in the [[lung]]s. Because they grow slowly and don't produce symptoms in the early stages, the average age of people diagnosed with digestive or lung carcinoids is about 60.{{fact}}

In later stages the [[tumor]]s sometimes produce [[hormone]]s that can cause [[carcinoid syndrome]]. The syndrome causes flushing of the face and upper chest, diarrhea, and trouble breathing.{{fact}}

Surgery is the main treatment for carcinoid tumors. If they haven't spread to other parts of the body, surgery can cure the cancer.{{fact}}<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/carcinoidtumors.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Cardiac arrest

2007-07-11T02:46:49Z

Mtur: links

'''Cardiac arrest''' occurs when the [[heart]] develops an [[arrhythmia]] that causes it to stop beating. This is different than a heart attack, where the heart usually continues to beat but blood flow to the heart is blocked.

There are many possible causes of cardiac arrest. They include coronary [[heart disease]], [[heart attack]], [[electrocution]], drowning, or choking.

Without medical attention, the person will die within a few minutes. People are less likely to die if they have early [[cardiopulmonary resuscitation]] (CPR) and [[defibrillation]].<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cardiacarrest.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Carpal tunnel syndrome

2007-07-11T02:44:30Z

Mtur: links, fix odd character from cut and paste

'''Carpal tunnel syndrome''' occurs when the [[median nerve]], which runs from the [[forearm]] into the [[hand]], becomes pressed or squeezed at the wrist. The median nerve controls sensations to the [[palm]] side of the thumb and fingers (although not the little finger), as well as impulses to some small muscles in the hand that allow the fingers and thumb to move. The carpal tunnel - a narrow, rigid passageway of [[ligament]] and bones at the base of the hand and houses the median nerve and tendons. Sometimes, thickening from irritated [[tendon]]s or other swelling narrows the tunnel and causes the median nerve to be compressed. The result may be pain, weakness, or numbness in the hand and wrist, radiating up the arm. Although painful sensations may indicate other conditions, carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common and widely known of the entrapment neuropathies in which the body's peripheral nerves are compressed or traumatized.<ref>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/carpal_tunnel/detail_carpal_tunnel.htm</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Cataract

2007-07-11T02:42:57Z

Mtur: fix fact tag

A '''cataract''' is a clouding of the lens in the [[eye]]. Cataracts are very common in older people. By age 80, more than half of all people in the United States either have a cataract or have had cataract surgery.{{fact}}

Common symptoms are

* Blurry vision
* Colors that seem faded
* Glare
* Not being able to see well at night
* Double vision
* Frequent prescription changes in your eye wear

Cataracts usually develop slowly. New glasses, brighter lighting, anti-glare sunglasses or magnifying lenses can help at first. [[cataract surgery|Surgery]] is also an option. It involves removing the cloudy lens and replacing it with an artificial lens. Wearing sunglasses and a hat with a brim to block [[ultraviolet light|ultraviolet sunlight]] may help to delay cataracts.<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cataract.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Cataract

2007-07-11T02:42:46Z

Mtur: links and fact tag

A '''cataract''' is a clouding of the lens in the [[eye]]. Cataracts are very common in older people. By age 80, more than half of all people in the United States either have a cataract or have had cataract surgery.{[fact}}

Common symptoms are

* Blurry vision
* Colors that seem faded
* Glare
* Not being able to see well at night
* Double vision
* Frequent prescription changes in your eye wear

Cataracts usually develop slowly. New glasses, brighter lighting, anti-glare sunglasses or magnifying lenses can help at first. [[cataract surgery|Surgery]] is also an option. It involves removing the cloudy lens and replacing it with an artificial lens. Wearing sunglasses and a hat with a brim to block [[ultraviolet light|ultraviolet sunlight]] may help to delay cataracts.<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cataract.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Active volcano

2007-07-11T02:41:05Z

Mtur: Links and moving citation into refrence

A [[volcano]] that is [[eruption|erupting]]. Also, a volcano that is not presently erupting but that has erupted within historical time and is considered likely to do so in the future (there is no distinction between "active" and "[[dormant volcano|dormant]]" in this sense). <ref>[http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/volcano_terminology.html Glossary of Volcano and Related Terminology (Foxworthy and Hill, 1982)]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]

USS Active (YT-112)

2007-07-11T01:37:27Z

Mtur: fix tag

The fifth Active (YT-112) was acquired by the Navy from the [[United States Shipping Board]] on 20 April 1925 and placed in service at [[New York]] on 27 April 1925.{{fact}} The harbor [[tug]] spent her entire 21-year naval career serving the 3d Naval District from her base in New York harbor.{{fact}} She was placed out of service on 5 June 1946, and her name was struck from the Navy list on 19 June 1946.{{fact}} Though her fate is not known for certain, her age and length of service would suggest that she was sold for [[scrap]] soon thereafter.{{fact}}<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a2/active-v.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]