Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:MRSA

2008-03-02T03:56:32Z

OldMan: Rename this article please and remove bias

== Oops! ==

"New gay plague" huh?

Where did that name come from? The article that you referenced?

Here is the quote from the article in full:

: "The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak," Barber told Cybercast News Service. "It is amazing to see what they've done with this."

: Barber said the initial reporting of the outbreak was "pretty solid" and news accounts related the facts "as is," but the coverage began to change after conservative groups like CWA noted that this variant is primarily spread by men having anaI sex.

: "The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other organizations began to jump up and down a bit and scream, and The New York Times and other organizations started to backpedal," Barber said.

: "The story was no longer the dangers associated with the outbreak - and the behaviors associated with it," said Barber. "The story now became about how groups like mine were supposedly misrepresenting the outbreak as some sort of 'new gay plague' or 'the new AIDS' - things we never said."

Get that? "...'''things we never said'''".

Obviously you thought it was a pretty catchy name though didn't you Ed? How about changing it to something a little more accurate and less obviously sensationalist? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

My 88-year old wife recently contracted MRSA. Surprisingly, she contracted it not in a San Francisco bathhouse, but in a hospital, where it is a very common infection in the United States. [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85871.php]. This article is the only one on this 'Trustworthy' encyclopedia about the worldwide epidemic of this infection, and it says something about this website that the only reference to it is in this ludicrously titled article. Might we move the article to one entitled 'MRSA', and removing the gay-bashing? Or, include it, but also include military-bashing, children in daycare bashing, and baby horse bashing? [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 22:56, 1 March 2008 (EST)

MRSA

2008-03-02T03:53:57Z

OldMan: Even more widespread

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) is an antibiotic-resistant infectious disease first seen in the UK in 1961. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=321690]. The disease declined over the next decade but re-emerged in hospitals in Eastern Australia in the late 1970's. [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no02/05-0454.htm]. A global epidemic[http://www.treatmentabroad.net/medical-tourism/mrsa-infection] that is now considered both epidemic and endemic in US hospitals[http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/12/1840.htm], the disease is most commonly acquired by those in healthcare facilities, as the bacteria can easily enter the body through a wound, catheter, or intravenous tube[http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=252&sectionId=5]. Patients in healthcare facilities typically have weakened immune systems due to being in an antibiotic-rich environment, and the bacteria especially thrive in such environments. The disease is also seen among dialysis patients, athletes, military recruits, children, children in day care, Pacific Islanders, Alaskan Natives, Native Americans, gay men, prisoners and foal-watchers, and even their baby horses, among others.[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_mrsa_ca_clinicians.html][http://mrsaactionuk.net/][http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5609a3.htm][http://www.nyas.org/ebrief/miniEB.asp?eBriefID=626] In a July 2007 study of 1,237 US hospitals, the infection rate was 46.3 patients in every 1,000. This rate is 8-11 times greater than previously estimated.[http://www.apic.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchFoundation/NationalMRSAPrevalenceStudy/APIC_MRSA_STUDY_EXEC.pdf] The CDC reports an infection rate for the general US population of 0.32 in 1000.

The '''New Gay Plague''' is a derogatory term used by those who observe that a particularly virulent strain of the disease was spreading through [[San Francisco]]'s [[homosexual community]] in early 2008.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html]</ref> However, although the rate of MRSA infection in this community (1.7 in 1000)[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/14/MNI5UE0L8.DTL] is six times that of the general population and they are much more likely to contract this strain of MRSA [http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=mrsa&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT], their rate of infection is a third that of the community of US football players (5.2 in 1000)[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alxhrJDn.cdc] and fractional when compared to US hospital patients (46.3 in 1000)[http://www.apic.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResearchFoundation/NationalMRSAPrevalenceStudy/APIC_MRSA_STUDY_EXEC.pdf]. It is noted that there is no similar term, 'The New Footballers Plague' or 'The New Hospital Plague'.

==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Staphylococcus aureus]]

==External links==
*[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, Conservatives Say] - Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer - January 28, 2008

Talk:Obama on rifles

2008-03-02T03:44:23Z

OldMan: /* Article Title */

Moved discussion from [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_on_rifles|Talk:Main Page: Obama on rifles]] on February 25, 2008. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

* "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped "

He might have been thinking about the [[Vietnam War]]. I spent five years in the army, and I always had trouble keeping my M16 rifle from jamming. I heard several stories directly from combat veterans who (they claimed) preferred to use captured AK-47 rifles because they didn't jam as often.

It seems that the M16 required more frequent maintenance (i.e., cleaning).

This is not a dig against '''policy''' - I think the US was right to be in there helping to defend South Vietnam. But many of the ideas used to prosecute the war were faulty, and equipment worries were really the least of them.

A book that I '''bought at the PX''' at [[Fort Benning]] in 1986 describes a lot of these mistakes. I should write an article about it, if I could remember the name of the book.

* calling all Vietnamese "gooks" didn't help.
* rotating out experienced troops after one year - or less for officers - led to a "ticket punching" mentality
* inadequate training - it takes 6 to 12 months to turn a civilian into a jungle fighter; many of the old-timers wouldn't even bother to help the F***ing New Guys (FNGs).
* tolerance of drug abuse; should have been shipped back to the states for treatment, you can't fight stoned, it requires alertness
* using European theatre tactics in a guerilla war; should have secretly armed two pro-South men in each village, not require them to wear uniforms, etc.

I was ''this close'' to becoming an officer, had talks with a colonel and a general, but ultimately I decided that while the military is essential to preserving freedom it cannot bring about world peace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:23, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: Ed, do you think Afghanistan is anything like Vietnam? One problem in Afghanistan is [[friendly fire]], and that wouldn't be due to a lack of ammunition. Moreover, shifting soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq (where there is a greater need) would not result in a shortage of ammunition and humvees for the soldiers remaining in Afghanistan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Of course not. I'm suggesting that '''Obama''' is thinking that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: He may be, which simply highlights how he doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, his [[liberal]] supporters don't care whether he knows anything or not, or is even logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Unless they took the humvees and the ammunition with them? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: Um, perhaps [[Obama]] thinks the soldiers drove the humvees to Iraq!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::: After reading the transcipt, I think Obama just stumbled over his words a bit. I don't think he meant that the transfer of soldiers ''caused'' a shortage of ammo and vehicles; he meant that the supposed shortage of soldiers, ammo, and vehicles was all part of the same problem (being "distracted" by Iraq).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 07:20, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Obama didn't correct his statement, as sincere candidates do after a debate if they "stumbled". Instead, Obama stood by his statement, in which he concluded that he "was right" as supposedly proven by his absurd analysis. I realize that many [[liberal]] [[Obama]] supporters don't care what he says, but rest assured that many voters do want a logical president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper confirmed Obama's claim. <ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html</ref> Any chance this could be added to the news item?--Jimmy 14:25, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Did ABC News also confirm that 2+2=5? It was Obama's conclusion that was idiotic, as well as his placing the self-interested view of a soldier above that of our experienced commanders. It's frightening to imagine a Commander-in-Chief Obama who would "reason" that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Obviously ABC News did not make such a dumb claim, they confirmed Obama's story, they actually interviewed the Army officer that was involved. Even Rumsfeld admitted equipment shortages (As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want). Maybe you don't care about the lack of equipment our soldiers are doing without, but I don't want any of my military buddies to go through what Obama's soldier went through.--Jimmy 14:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, I don't think ABC News confirmed Obama's reasoning or his conclusion. Quote something to support your claim if you disagree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Here you are. it looks like Jimmy didn't construct the link properly. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html ABC News' fact-check desk]. --[[User:AlfredK|AlfredK]] 19:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Obama's conclusion was that the usage of troops, equipment, and ammunition means that those resources are not available for use in Afghanistan, and that if they were redirected to Afghanistan we would not be in a situation were shortages may exist. This conclusion doesn't strike me as all that unusual. The Army captain in question confirms that his squad was unable to train with certain weapons and did indeed have to train with some Taliban weapons due to the lack of the US equivalent.

::::::::Incidentally, the use of enemy weapons is far from unprecedented and probably goes back to the cavemen picking up the clubs of the enemy tribe after a victory. Even in WW2, Allied forces used German weapons, some of which (the MG42 particularly) were far superior to their American equivalents. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 15:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: In other words, no quote from ABC News backing up Obama's absurd reasoning and conclusion. Of course not: Obama was speaking nonsense, so much so that one defender said he must have misspoken!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or are just naturally so. I'm not a "defender" of Obama (I'm a Huckabee man, myself), but if you read the transcript, it's clear that Obama isn't claiming the lack of soldiers in Afghanistan caused the lack of ammo/equipment, but that the lack of planning and poor judgement (by current civilian leadership) casued said lack.

:::::::::: Not sure what you are trying to say. This article by ABC News confirmed a soldier talked to Obama's campaign and Obama accurately quoted the soldiers claims. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html --Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: You are clueless, Jimmy. It's Obama's reasoning and conclusion that were absurd, not whether he spoke to a soldier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)
----
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
This is what every military service member saw of Obama. If he's got no respect for the flag, no respect for the anthem, no respect for the Pledge of Allegience, as proven here, then he's got no respect for those who do. Very, very few soldiers will ever vote for this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: How does this image show Obama is disrepectful to the flag, etc, and is somehow disrespectful to 'those who do'? I am one retired military member that may vote for him. So far your non-scientific prediction is falling flat.--Jimmy 15:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::How does it not? I am one retired military member that will never vote for him. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Karajou did not claim that no soldier would vote for Obama, so Jimmy's statement about his views as a retiree (not a soldier) doesn't undercut anything Karajou said. The guy whom Obama said he talked to might vote for him! Maybe, that is ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::Isn't Karajou also a retired soldier? So why are his views as a retiree more valid than those of Jimmy?
::::I'm a retired sailor. And in my stint in the Navy I've discovered that the entire military is overwhelmingly-conservative. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Karajou, you made the claim, please back it up with evidence. Mr. Schlafly, military retirees are considered to be military members with reduced service. The number of military members that consider themselves republican is plummeting and is now well below 50%. Looks like The Democratic nominee may carry a sizable percentage of the military vote.--Jimmy 15:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::So, we must ignore the photo and the story behind it as worthless? You back up your claims now, Jimmy. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Does a single lapse make one unpatriotic and therefore unfit to be Commander-in-Chief?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:48, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: It's not a lapse. What evidence do you have that it was a lapse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Well, I dunno--are there more photos of Obama with hand not-over-heart, or is this the only one? It should be noted, too, that the video of this event shows that Obama is the only one on the stage who is actually singing the Anthem.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: RossC, that's known as [[deliberate ignorance]]. Do a little research and you'll quickly find that Obama became less patriotic as a way of garnering donations from the far left in his campaign against Hillary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::I'm not being deliberately ignorant--I honestly haven't paid much attention to the Dem side of the race. If you have more evidence of Obama's unpatriotism, post it (or put it in the Obama article). All I see is this one photo over and over again. Are there more?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:07, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Jimmy, I don't doubt that many in the military are Democrats. I do doubt that they will vote for Obama in large percentages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::I am asking you to provide evidence that this photo shows Obama disrespecting the flag, pledge, etc and the people 'that do'. I see no evidence to support your claim. I hope you are not saying that someone who refuses to wear a flag pin and stands respectfully for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance is somehow disrespectful. Please provide the evidence. This article in USA Today undercuts your claim that very few military members will vote for Obama. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm --Jimmy 15:50, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::No it does not undercut my claim. USA Today is not a neutral source. Get your evidence either from the Pentagon or the Veterans Administration. As to the rest, you just confirmed my point by proving my case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: The USA Today article only serves to reinforce Karajou's observations anyway. It says the military is 60-40 Republican-Democrat. Obama only gets about 50% of Democratic votes, so that leaves him with only about 20% military support. Pathetic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::The claim that it's easier to capture a Taliban rifle than to get a US-made M16 is absurd. I doubt that ABC "confirmed" this claim. What were the exact words of the officer?

::Rifles are supplied to the US Army for around $500 each. Shipping them is not a problem. If anyone has voted '''against''' funds for such a minor purchase, I'd like to know what political party he's in. (I would suspect the party of the man who "voted for ... before I voted against", what's his name, Jerry or something?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: I was unaware that the Pentagon and VA provided statistics concerning the military vote. Could you provide me with a link to these stats please? And just how did I prove your case? I really would like to know. The USA Today article also states Obama receives the most military donations of all the candidates. Where does the 20% figure come from? If Obama is the Democratic Party nominee, won't he receive the vast majority of the democratic vote? In other votes, using your reasoning, he would get 40% of the vote. That comes out to many millions of votes by military members.--Jimmy 16:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Apparently, Jimmy, you refuse to read what you have posted. And from what I've read so far, you're not doing to well as a retired servicemman; in fact, I don't think you're one at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Actually, I do read what I post, I just don't take your assertions and reasoning at face value, so you are incorrect. I am doing rather well as a retired service member, you are wrong again. I am actually a retired service member, I have an ID card that says US Air Force retired, my current job with a defense contractor was based on my 22 years in the military, etc. Looks like you are wrong again. --Jimmy 16:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::Well, as someone with 22 years of service, you should know exactly what duty, honor, and country are all about, which was proudly proclaimed by those with whom you worked with in the Air Force, and who you are denigrating and insulting now by your actions on this site. You can think about it elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Obama has received more campaign donations from soldiers than anyone except for Paul<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp</ref> - scroll to the bottom. But I'm sure they still aren't going to vote for him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Mr. Karajou, you just blocked User:Jimmy infinitely for insulting the military, but as far as i can tell, the only person he insulted was you---by disagreeing with you. Could you explain what he did that warranted an infinite ban?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:54, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::It's pretty simple actually, and I've seen it myself. Having spent 22 years around people who know what duty, honor, and country mean; having spent 22 years around people who have fought in combat to protect this country; having spent 22 years near people who were highly-decorated...and then come to this site and spout a philosophy that is against everything they have fought for? Nobody spends that much time in any branch of the military and not learn something about whom you work with. In the military such conduct is at the very least against good order and discipline, and I've seen people thrown out of the Navy with similar liberal persuasions after serving a fraction of the time that Jimmy claims he spent in the Air Force. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::Why did you delete my comment? That was a rather cowardly thing to do. Not really the action of someone who served honorably for 22 years. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 17:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::If you had read it, it was Jimmy who claimed to have served for 22 years; I served for 20; I removed your edit because it was blatently wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::OK, since you "cant handle the truth", let's try again....what you said above basically boils down to you not agreeing with Jimmy's voting behavior, therefore you ban him. Could you perhaps correct my misperception?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 17:13, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::No, he was not banned for a voting disagreement; the explanation is above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Explanation? You are practically admitting in your explanation that you banned him because he just didn't agree with you. I don't see any other way to interpret it. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 17:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::You can interpret it any way you like. This discussion is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::Is there an abuse desk where this can be reported. Karajou has clearly blocked Jimmy because of an ideological disagreement in contravention of the Conservapedia Commandments. Where would one formally challenge this sort of action? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Was it Sinclair Lewis who said that when fascism came to the US, it would be carrying a flag and a cross? There's more to being "patriotic" than saying the Magic Words of the Pledge of Allegiance, after all. --[[User:AlfredK|AlfredK]] 19:41, 24 February 2008 (EST)

It would seem about 40% of the military support the Democratic ticket, up from 22% in the 2002 election cycle, according to donations as of Sept. 2007 [http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300] Just an FYI. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 19:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: That was before it became McCain v. Obama. Moreover, primary donations are not much of an indicator of overall voting patterns in a broad election. Notice how McCain won with so few donations?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)

My father is a Vietnam vet who's voting for Obama. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:15, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Perfect illustration of point #5 of [[liberal logic]], unless you meant to preface your remark with "Of course this proves nothing, but ..."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::I'll preface mine if Karajou will preface his ( "I am one retired military member that will never vote for him." ) My point is that we can debate back and forth, but without a scientific poll, both sides of the debate are making assumptions. But that's also an assumption. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:24, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: It's known that the military votes at least 60% Republican, and I think the percentage was even higher in the famous absentee ballots in Florida in 2000. With a decorated war hero and POW (McCain) against someone who never served and has raised money from anti-military folks like MoveOn.org, you can bet the percentages will be even more lopsided, just as Karajou said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, I know I'm probably gonna get shouted at for this BUT (hehe) what is so wrong about not being patriotic? Now that I've asked it, let me qualify: I do not mean hating your country, I do agree that that is a problem. I also do not mean being indifferent to your country, again indifference causes almost as many problems as hate. However what is wrong with liking the country you live in, yet not seeing the need to express it with national anthems and pledges and flags? I love Australia yet the flag does not connect with me and the anthem seems rather lame (by the way I do stand for the national anthem out of respect for those whom it does have meaning for). I am also willing to admit that Australia has problems (although we may disagree on what those problems are) and that we are far from perfect. Clearly I am not patriotic, yet I am not going to violently attack my country or its people. Why is this attitude so badly ridiculed on this site, and particularly in this discussion? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 17:17, 25 February 2008

:Your position, Bolly, is unique. Like a Knicks fan who doesn't like any of the players or coaches (understandable) but still roots for them in every game. I think you ''ARE'' patriotic, but only in the broadest sense of the word.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 09:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Well what I really meant (before I was sidetracked by myself!) was that: what was so bad about Obama not doing the full hand on heart head down or singing or whatever it is that the others were doing in that picture? Perhaps it is just that he does not feel the need to express his love for America in that way? Maybe I am completely wrong but from what I've read its as good a theory as has been put forward on this thread so far. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 7:44 26 February 2008

==Article Title==
It strikes me that this is an incredibly poor title for an encyclopedia entry - "Obama on rifles". What?!! The title is just bizarre - it's an article about a pubic figure's position on a particular issue? But not part of that person's own article, and completely divorced from it? If so, what's to stop an article called "Bush on drugs", "Rice in India", or "Cheney on statins"? So I would propose that the entire article be moved into a section on the Barack Obama article, if the topic needs to be discussed, and the section heading being made clearer. This seems like a very odd sort of encyclopedia. [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 12:07, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree, it does seem a little strange for an article. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:44, 28 February 2008 (EST)

So, what do we do about this then? I don't think I can change an article title - don't know how? [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 22:44, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-29T01:15:14Z

OldMan: numbers cannot be compared to comments

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Googling "second generation atheist" gets over 900 hits. Not that it matters because it is google. Really before seeing this page I honestly never have seen the term before. I wonder what exactly is the point of this article? It seems to just be a definition for a rarely used term that anyone with basic English skills would be able to infer. It then makes an unbacked claim based off of "data" made by google in order to insult a broad group of people. I think the whole thing should justed be trashed. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

: Put it in quotes, "second generation atheist": only 73 google hits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:: I expect that he ''did'' put it in quotes. I get 899 hits for "second generation atheist" (in quotes), but only get 98 hits for the plural "second generation atheist'''s'''", the term that you have in the article. ''Without'' quotes, 'second generation atheist' gets 128,000 hits. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Mr.Schlafly, I'd like to assess the mathematical accuracy of your thesis. Of the following list of reasons for a low Google search 'hit' number, which do you accept could be possible causes? Please consider that any given term may be subject to these effects - you might even imagine an imaginary search phrase - "banana hammock bicycle", or something, as the actual term we're considering is irrelevant to analysing this data

#The searched-for phenomenon genuinely has a lower occurrence in the World (this is your thesis);
#The term is not widely known;
#The term is not spelled in precisely the same manner;
#The term is one of many terms used to describe the same phenomenon, and thus the result is a subset within the set of all data;
#The term is simply not a relevant way to search for a topic;
#The term simply happens to not be used on the internet, though it may be used in conversation;
#The term is only used in languages other than the search language

I'd love to see which items in the list above you think could cause a low result? [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 20:02, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, one other thing - I'd point out that the article's 'proof' contrasts a numerical result "Google retrieves only 18 results", with a non-numerical result "have been strikingly productive". The former is a number, the latter is an unreferenced comment. That's not a very convincing argument - it's like saying "Huckabee has an amazing 247 pledged delegates, but McCain is doing quite well". [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 20:15, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I disagree just a little. Google searches can be useful as a rough guide, or a starting point, if you are careful to take into account the sorts of issues that you've listed above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh come now, Mr.Rayment. Googling the phrase "first born son" yields 282,200 hits. Googling "first born daughter" yields 37,600 hits. Do you seriously believe this tells you that seven and a half times more often, the first born child is male rather than female?

I repeat, Google hits are utterly meaningless in this context. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "this context". I did say that they ''can'' be useful, not that they are ''always'' useful, so a single example (or even multiple examples) does not disprove that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::Google hits are useful to quantify Google hits (and similar), there isn't much more than that. [[User:Nyflah|Nyflah]] 11:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I've already said that Google hits don't support they way that they are used in this article. Why is there such a determination to make out that they are utterly useless in ''any'' situation? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: He suggested the control group as atheist children of theists, not of atheists. Atheist children of theists are the appropriate control if you are comparing ''second-generation'' atheists with ''first-generation'' atheists. But it would also be interesting to compare both groups to first-generation Christians and second-generation Christians.
:: And although you could add as separate groups other religions, lumping all theistic religions into one group vs. atheists is making a huge, and invalid, assumption about how similar various theistic religions are. So after atheists, the first group you would compare against would be Christians, and preferably Christians from a reformed background.
:: All proper studies have to grapple with problems of definitions, avoiding hidden biases, etc., and the same applies here, but I don't see any exceptionally difficult problems with a study like this. Religion, at least, is already determined by many other studies. It can be done. Achievement would not be a particular problem, although one thing to be wary of is to avoid a reliance on academic achievement, as people who have achieved academically have, for the most part, gone through a system (i.e. university and the like) that is predominantly atheistic, and which would therefore cause a bias in the results.
:: But such a study is the sort of thing that you get a grant of tens of thousands of dollars for, and takes many months of work. I very much doubt that it would be within the capabilities of anyone here.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::Trouble is, without a properly conducted study (either done by someone here or already done and tracked down), the article remains a blog-like opinion piece with no basis in demonstrable fact. Maybe it should be moved to the "essay" space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:44, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-29T01:02:58Z

OldMan: Who wants to take a Google hit analysis test?

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Googling "second generation atheist" gets over 900 hits. Not that it matters because it is google. Really before seeing this page I honestly never have seen the term before. I wonder what exactly is the point of this article? It seems to just be a definition for a rarely used term that anyone with basic English skills would be able to infer. It then makes an unbacked claim based off of "data" made by google in order to insult a broad group of people. I think the whole thing should justed be trashed. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

: Put it in quotes, "second generation atheist": only 73 google hits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Mr.Schlafly, I'd like to assess the mathematical accuracy of your thesis. Of the following list of reasons for a low Google search 'hit' number, which do you accept could be possible causes? Please consider that any given term may be subject to these effects - you might even imagine an imaginary search phrase - "banana hammock bicycle", or something, as the actual term we're considering is irrelevant to analysing this data

#The searched-for phenomenon genuinely has a lower occurrence in the World (this is your thesis);
#The term is not widely known;
#The term is not spelled in precisely the same manner;
#The term is one of many terms used to describe the same phenomenon, and thus the result is a subset within the set of all data;
#The term is simply not a relevant way to search for a topic;
#The term simply happens to not be used on the internet, though it may be used in conversation;
#The term is only used in languages other than the search language

I'd love to see which items in the list above you think could cause a low result? [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 20:02, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I disagree just a little. Google searches can be useful as a rough guide, or a starting point, if you are careful to take into account the sorts of issues that you've listed above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh come now, Mr.Rayment. Googling the phrase "first born son" yields 282,200 hits. Googling "first born daughter" yields 37,600 hits. Do you seriously believe this tells you that seven and a half times more often, the first born child is male rather than female?

I repeat, Google hits are utterly meaningless in this context. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I guess that it depends on what you mean by "this context". I did say that they ''can'' be useful, not that they are ''always'' useful, so a single example (or even multiple examples) does not disprove that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::Google hits are useful to quantify Google hits (and similar), there isn't much more than that. [[User:Nyflah|Nyflah]] 11:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I've already said that Google hits don't support they way that they are used in this article. Why is there such a determination to make out that they are utterly useless in ''any'' situation? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: He suggested the control group as atheist children of theists, not of atheists. Atheist children of theists are the appropriate control if you are comparing ''second-generation'' atheists with ''first-generation'' atheists. But it would also be interesting to compare both groups to first-generation Christians and second-generation Christians.
:: And although you could add as separate groups other religions, lumping all theistic religions into one group vs. atheists is making a huge, and invalid, assumption about how similar various theistic religions are. So after atheists, the first group you would compare against would be Christians, and preferably Christians from a reformed background.
:: All proper studies have to grapple with problems of definitions, avoiding hidden biases, etc., and the same applies here, but I don't see any exceptionally difficult problems with a study like this. Religion, at least, is already determined by many other studies. It can be done. Achievement would not be a particular problem, although one thing to be wary of is to avoid a reliance on academic achievement, as people who have achieved academically have, for the most part, gone through a system (i.e. university and the like) that is predominantly atheistic, and which would therefore cause a bias in the results.
:: But such a study is the sort of thing that you get a grant of tens of thousands of dollars for, and takes many months of work. I very much doubt that it would be within the capabilities of anyone here.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::Trouble is, without a properly conducted study (either done by someone here or already done and tracked down), the article remains a blog-like opinion piece with no basis in demonstrable fact. Maybe it should be moved to the "essay" space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:44, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Obama on rifles

2008-02-28T17:07:05Z

OldMan: This is not an encyclopedia article title.

MRSA

2008-02-13T01:48:24Z

OldMan: capitalize

The '''new gay plague''' is [[Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus]], an infection that was spreading through [[San Francisco]]'s [[homosexual community]] in early 2008<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html]</ref>, through schools nationwide [<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MRSAinSchools/]</ref>, and through the global healthcare system <ref>[http://www.hospitalmanagement.net/contractors/cleaning/regent/press1.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_MRSA_spotlight_2006.html]</ref>.
==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Staphylococcus aureus]]

==External links==
*[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, Conservatives Say] - Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer - January 28, 2008

MRSA

2008-02-13T01:45:24Z

OldMan: Sorry, I'm citing the CDC, I don't see how you can contest their opinion. Also, MRSA did not 'start in the gay community in 2008'

The '''new gay plague''' is [[methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus]], an infection that was spreading through [[San Francisco]]'s [[homosexual community]] in early 2008<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html]</ref>, through schools nationwide [<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MRSAinSchools/]</ref>, and through the global healthcare system <ref>[http://www.hospitalmanagement.net/contractors/cleaning/regent/press1.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_MRSA_spotlight_2006.html]</ref>.
==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Staphylococcus aureus]]

==External links==
*[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, Conservatives Say] - Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer - January 28, 2008

MRSA

2008-02-13T01:37:11Z

OldMan: Added cites and balance.

The '''new gay plague''' is [[methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus]], an infection that was spreading through [[San Francisco]]'s [[homosexual community]] in early 2008<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html]</ref>, through schools nationwide [<ref>[http://www.hospitalinfection.org/]</ref>, and through the global healthcare system <ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/413080_6]</ref><ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_MRSA_spotlight_2006.html]</ref>.
==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Staphylococcus aureus]]

==External links==
*[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080126a.html Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, Conservatives Say] - Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer - January 28, 2008

Talk:MRSA

2008-02-13T01:18:34Z

OldMan: MRSA is also known as the 'Hospital Superbug'