Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-08T10:09:20Z

PeterS: /* Sufiah Yusof */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-06T23:32:35Z

PeterS: /* Sufiah Yusof */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-06T01:03:31Z

PeterS: Sufiah Yusof

User:PeterS

2008-03-22T12:25:52Z

2008-03-20T01:01:08Z

PeterS: /* Prominent people who were educated at home */ See talk page: hyperbole

[[Image:Homeschool.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A young homeschool student]]
'''Homeschooling''' is a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the [[United States]], including many contest winners, whereby the students receive education outside of traditional [[school]]s. Reasons for '''homeschooling''' include:

* a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities
* freedom from [[liberal]] and/or [[atheistic]] bias and culture in schools
* a more flexible daily schedule
* avoiding conflicts with [[public school]] officials
* more time by parents with their children in formative years
* avoiding objectionable [[vaccines]], mental health screening, and questionnaires
* developing the discipline to work at home as an adult, which can be invaluable
* less likely to pick up life-long addictions from peers, like drugs, cigarettes, pornography or alcohol
* the time and availability to learn a trade or profession as an apprentice, as was historically done

Homeschooling [[parent]]s oversee their children's education, usually providing some of the instruction themselves. In addition, they can mix-and-match other instructional approaches, including:
* attending a weekly course provided in many communities by the homeschooling community
* using a correspondence school (or the modern video- or [[computer]]-based equivalent)
* taking classes at local museums or nature centers
* joining with other [[family|families]] to share teaching responsibilities in a co-op
* encouraging the student to self-instruct using library books, traditional textbooks or workbooks, knowledgeable mentor's and/or hands-on experiences
* hiring a tutor for certain difficult topics, like [[physics]]

Some homeschoolers also include local "after school" enrichment programs like scouts, 4-H, sports, [[music]] lessons, karate or dance classes, public library programs, and summer camps as part of their educational program. In 2003, "76 percent of homeschool graduates surveyed between the ages of 18 to 24 voted within the last five years, compared to only 29 percent of the corresponding U.S. population."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35226</ref>

==Homeschooling Statistics==

In the [[United States]], as of 2003, the government estimated that 1.1 million students - about 2.2% of children in grades K-12 - were homeschooled. <ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/estimated.asp] Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006</ref> A 2005 estimate from the [[National Home Education Research Institute]] places the number at 1.9 million to 2.4 million while the [[National Center for Education Statistics]] estimates that the number of students being homeschooled increased 29% from 1999 to 2003.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg 1</ref>Families who homeschool do so for a number of reasons. A 2001 study by the [[US Census Bureau]] found that the single largest reason that parents homeschool is that they feel they can give their children a better education at home. This accounted for 50% of the homeschool families; [[religion|religious]] reasons came in second at 33%.<ref>Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics, by Kurt J. Bauman, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2001, Working Paper Series No. 53 [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html]</ref> Other frequently mentioned reasons include dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools, the ability to provide religious or moral instruction along with academics, the ability to control what the child is being taught, flexibility in meeting the needs of a child with special needs (such as a physical or mental health problem, a temporary illness, or giftedness), flexibility in scheduling family life, and concern about safety, drugs, and peer pressure at other schools. <ref>Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp] </ref>

Admissions departments at major [[college]]s are now familiar and comfortable with homeschooling, according to a 2004 Boston Globe article. The article quotes a [[Liberal Arts college|Williams College]] admission officer as saying: <blockquote>"We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives." It notes that acceptance rate of homeschoolers at Williams is 20 percent,<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked?mode=PF Schoolhouse rocked] "home schooling has gone main stream, especially in Massachusetts. It's estimated that as many as 20,000 children here have abandoned test-crazy public schools and high-priced private schools for the comfort of the living room couch. But most surprising of all is that Harvard, BU, Brown, and other colleges are welcoming home-schoolers like all other students." Source for Williams College admission officer's quote, 20% figure.</ref> virtually identical to its overall acceptance rate.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm College acceptance rates]: Williams, 19.2%. U. S. News and World Report</ref></blockquote>

In the [[United States]], some states allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities at their local public schools. 20 states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming) in one way or another expressly allow equal access. In most other states, participation is worked out on a case-by-case basis. <ref>HSLDA: State Laws Concerning Participation of Homeschool Students in Public School Activities [http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000048.asp]</ref> In addition, some states, such as Alabama, are considering equal access legislation. <ref>HSLDA: Alabama - Legislation for Participation in Public School Activities[http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/al/200705010.asp]</ref>

In many states, school athletic associations dominated by public schools exclude homeschoolers from participation in athletics, even though they allow students at different charter schools to participate.<ref>[[New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association]]</ref>

==History==

In the United States, opting out of [[public school]]s is not new. When [[Thomas Edison]]'s public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home.

Education at public school year-round from about ages 6 to 18 only became common in the 20th century due to compulsory education laws. The first [[law]] requiring attendance at public school passed in [[Massachusetts]] in 1852; the second such law passed in [[Washington D.C.]] in 1864; and most states did not pass mandatory schooling laws until between 1870 and 1917.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/CompulsoryEd.htm Compulsory Education], National Conference of State Legislatures: "More than 150 years have passed since Horace Mann helped Massachusetts establish a statewide system of education that eventually led to the requirement that all children attend public school. In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory school attendance laws, and by 1918, all states required children to receive an education."</ref><ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref>

But even under compulsory education laws in the late 1800s, the school year was only twelve to twenty weeks long. Very few stayed in school from ages 6 to 18. For example, by 1900, only 6% of Americans had graduated from a formal high school. Moreover, these students did not learn basic skills like reading in school; they learned them at home.<ref>''id.''</ref>

Baltimore's Calvert School began selling the school's curriculum to parents in 1905. Within five years, more than 300 children were enrolled in Calvert's correspondence courses. Over the next hundred years, Calvert served over 500,000 children from a wide variety of families nation-wide and around the world, including missionary families and those in remote locations. <ref>Calvert School Homeschooling: A Century of Tradition and Innovation [http://www.calvertschool.org/education-services/home-school-history/]</ref>

Homeschooling began in the 1960s from very different ideological sources. [[Seventh-Day Adventists]] Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore pioneered homeschooling as a result of their research into education and their concern about the harmful effects of schooling on students, particularly boys, between ages 5 and 15.<ref>http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=2</ref> On the other side of the political spectrum, John Holt wrote a book critical of schooling in 1964, entitled ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> More generally, millions of Americans were alarmed at the 1962 [[U. S. Supreme Court]] ruling which banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools, and many of those parents began to look for alternatives.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first [[New York Times]] story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the [[Westchester]] County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling.<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only [[Christian fundamentalists]] any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."



== Prominent people who were educated at home ==


Throughout history, a large number of accomplished people in many fields have been homeschooled. Here is a growing list of homeschooled achievers:

*[[Ansel Adams]], (1902-1984), the finest landscape photographer of the twentieth century. "At twelve, unable to stand the confinement and tedium of the classroom, he utterly disrupted his lessons with wild laughter and undisguised contempt for the inept ramblings of his teachers. His father decided that Ansel’s formal education was best ended. From that point forward, the boy was home-schooled in Greek, the English classics, algebra, and the glories of the ocean, inlets, and rocky beaches that surrounded their home very near San Francisco."<ref>http://wy.essortment.com/anseladamsbio_rjrq.htm</ref>

*[[John Adams]] (1735-1826), U.S. President, learned to read at home, and was then taught in the kitchen by a neighbor with a handful of children. He matriculated to Harvard College at age 15.{{fact}}

*[[Louisa May Alcott]] (1832-1888), the author of ''Little Women'' and other great works, was taught by her father.{{fact}}

*[[Clara Barton]] (1821-1912), pioneering nurse during the [[Civil War]], founder of the [[American Association of the International Red Cross]]. Barton was educated at home, and at 15 started teaching school. She later attended the Liberal Institute in Clinton, New York. <ref>White House Dream Team: Clara Barton[http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/dreamteam/clarabarton.html]</ref> <ref>Clara Harlowe Barton, Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/bartonbio.htm]</ref>

*[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]]

*[[Mary Breckinridge]] (1881-1965), pioneering American midwife and founder of Kentucky's Frontier Nursing Service. Mary's father was a diplomat, and she was educated in America and abroad by private tutors.<ref>Frontier Nursing Service[http://www.frontiernursing.org/History/MaryBreckinridge.shtm] </ref>

*[[Robert Burns]] (1759-1796) [[Scotland]]'s national poet.

*[[Andrew Carnegie]] (1835-1919), the brilliant American businessman and philanthropist of the late 1800s, his father was a poor weaver and Andrew dropped out of elementary school<ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref> and had only five years of formal schooling.<ref>http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/carnegiemedal/background.html</ref>

*[[Augustin-Louis Cauchy]] (1789-1857), one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, was taught by his father during an 11-year retreat to the country to escape the [[French Revolution]]. His father "wrote his own textbooks, several of them in the fluent verse of which he was master. Verse, he believed, made grammar, history and, above all, morals less repulsive to the juvenile mind."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 273 (1937).</ref><ref>http://james.fabpedigree.com/mathmen.htm#Cauchy</ref>

*[[Pafnuty Chebyshev]] (1821-1894), one of the greatest Russian [[mathematician]]s, was homeschooled until college.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Chebyshev.html</ref>

*[[Agatha Christie]] (1890-1976), best-selling English mystery writer. Christie was educated at home by her mother, who encouraged her to write from a very early age. At sixteen she was sent to finishing school in Paris. <ref>PBS Mystery Series "Miss Marple" site: Biography of Agatha Christie[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/mystery/marple/christie.html]</ref>

*[[Winston Churchill]] (1874–1965), [[British]] statesman. He was homeschooled in learning how to read, write and do math, and was not enrolled in a school until several months into the school year at the age of seven. After only about two years at that school, he was abruptly pulled out and then spent several years under the instruction of two maiden sisters in a less formal school setting.<ref>William Manchester, "The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, VISIONS OF GLORY 1874-1932 (Little Brown & Co.).</ref>

*[[Thomas Edison]] (1804–1896), the most prolific inventor in the history of the world and the holder of 1093 patents.<ref>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm</ref>

*[[Paul Erdos]] (1913–1996), the most prolific [[mathematician]] of the 20th century, was homeschooled.<ref>http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Erdos.html</ref>

*[[Pierre de Fermat]] (1601?-1665), the greatest [[mathematician]] of the 17th century and the founder of the modern theory of numbers, was homeschooled.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 57 (1937)</ref>

*[[Benjamin Franklin]] (1706-1790), a leading [[Founding Father]] and prolific inventor and statesman, only attended part-time school from ages 8 to 10.{{fact}}

*[[Evariste Galois]] (1811–1832), among the brightest mathematicians ever and the founder of Galois groups and fields and Galois theory. "Until the age of twelve Galois had no teacher but his mother, Adelaide-Marie Demante."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 362 (1937). Galois' life was tragically cut short at age 20 in a [[duel]], and his work was published posthumously.[scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Galois.html]</ref>

*[[William Hamilton]] (1805-1865), the greatest Irish mathematician and biggest contributor since [[Isaac Newton]] of [[mathematics]] to [[physics]]. He was taught by his uncle, the Reverend James Hamilton.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 340-41 (1937).</ref>

*Zac, Taylor, and Isaac Hanson, of the band [[Hanson]]. Educated at home by their mother, and later by a tutor. <ref>Hanson: The All American Boys[http://www.drdrew.com/DrewLive/article.asp?id=1112]</ref><ref>Hangin With Presents
Hanson[http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/hanson.html]</ref>

*[[Julia Ward Howe]] (1819–1910), abolitionist, writer, and women's rights activist. Julia was educated by tutors at home and in girls' schools until age 16. <ref>Open Connections Program, Women Working 1800-1930, Harvard University Library: Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910)[http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/people_howe.html]</ref>

*[[Carl Jacobi]] (1804-1851), a prominent and prolific German mathematician, was homeschooled until the age of 12 and was taught the classics and [[mathematics]] by a maternal uncle.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 327 (1937).</ref>

*[[Joan of Arc]] (1412-1431), one of the greatest military leaders ever.<ref>"As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. ... It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc][http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html Biography of Joan of Arc]</ref>

*[[C.S. Lewis]] (1898-1963), the author of the ''Chronicles of Narnia'' and other famous works, was homeschooled by his mother and a governess until age 10, and later sent to be taught by a tutor to prepare him for [[Oxford]].<ref>'''Lewis, C. S.''', ''Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life'', London: Harvest Books (1955) ISBN 0-1568-7011-8</ref>

*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809-1865), American president. "Though his [formal] education was limited to a few months in a 1-teacher school, Lincoln avidly read books such as the Bible, ''Pilgrim's Progress'' and Weemss ''Life of Washington''."<ref>http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnbio.htm</ref>

*Countess Augusta [[Ada Lovelace]] (1815-1852), a visionary programmer and namesake of the [[ADA]] programming language, was homeschooled by governesses and tutors hired by her mother.{{fact}}

*[[Benoit Mandelbrot]], Harvard mathematician considered the founder of fractal geometry, received no extended formal schooling and was homeschooled by his uncle beginning at the age of 12.<ref>http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fractal.html</ref>

*[[Yehudi Menuhin]] (1916-1999), noted violinist and conductor, never attended school, and was taught Mathematics, History and Hebrew by his father, and French, German, Italian and Spanish by his mother.<ref>Slater, Elinor and Slater, Robert ''Great Jewish Men'' (Jonathon David Publishers; 1996) ISBN 0-8246-0381-8</ref>

*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791), German composer. "He was educated by his father, Leopold Mozart, a violinist of high repute in the service of the archbishop of Salzburg."<ref>[http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]</ref>

* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the best-selling [[Inheritance Trilogy]] ([[Eragon]], [[Eldest]], and a third book yet unreleased). He was homeschooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

* [[Blaise Pascal]] (1623-1662), one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of all time, was entirely homeschooled by his father.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 74-76 (1937).</ref>

* [[George Patton]] (1885–1945), one of America's greatest generals. He was homeschooled until age 11 based on his "father's theory of education" that "youthful mind should be led along a path that parallels the development of the mind of the race" by being read to by elders.<ref>http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap01.html The Patton Society ("The Early Years")]</ref><ref>http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=517</ref>

* [[Henri Poincaré]] (1854-1912), one of the greatest mathematicians ever and an original developer of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Poincaré, who had diphtheria as a child, received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school. He entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honor), in 1862 and spent eleven years there. He entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines. <ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

* [[Alexander Pope]] (1688-1744), one of the greatest and most-often quoted [[English]] poets and essayists. "From Twyford School he was expelled after writing a satire on one of the teachers. At home, Pope's aunt taught him to read. Latin and Greek he learned from a local priest and later he acquired knowledge of French and Italian poetry."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm</ref>

*[[Joseph Priestley]] (1733-1804), the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of oxygen, dropped out of school as a teenager and privately learned geometry, algebra and numerous languages.{{fact}}

*[[Bernhard Riemann]] (1826-1866), a German recognized as the greatest modern mathematician. He was taught at home by his father, a Lutheran minister, until he was ten. After that he was tutored by a teacher from a local school until he entered the Lyceum in Hannover at 14. <ref>School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland -- Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson[http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Riemann.html]</ref><ref>http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/199899/bioriema.htm</ref>

*[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1882-1945), U.S. President. He was educated by private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton, an elite private school in Massachusetts, in 1896. <ref>The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. "Franklin D. Roosevelt." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, 2003).
[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm]</ref>

*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1858–1919), U.S. President. "Roosevelt never enrolled in a public school. He was mostly instructed by private tutors until he entered Harvard College in 1876."<ref>http://law.enotes.com/presidential-biography/theodore-roosevelt-administrations/education</ref>

*[[George Bernard Shaw]] (1856-1950), author. Tutored in the classics by a clerical uncle until he entered school at age 10. Left school by age 15. <ref>Encyclopedia of World Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw/]</ref> <ref>Dictionary of Literary Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw-dlb/]</ref><ref>George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950 Biographical Sketch[http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/shaw.gb.bio.html]</ref>

*[[Mark Twain]] (real name was Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910), American author and satirist who said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Attended school through the 5th grade, where he "excelled only in spelling" and was frequently truant, then worked as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His mother said, "He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Mark Twain House and Museum: Biography of Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain [http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml]</ref><ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref>

* [[Leonardo da Vinci]] (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio. <ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

*[[Andrew Wyeth]] (1917- ), American artist, was tutored at home until he was 18. <ref>The Homeschooling of Andrew Wyeth, A Conversation with the Artist, Gifted Children Monthly, May 1986, Vol 7 No. 5.[http://www.nfgcc.org/51.htm] </ref>

*[[Frank Lloyd Wright]] (1867-1959), considered the finest architect ever, was homeschooled by his mother who dreamed that he would become an architect. She used "Froebel's geometric blocks to entertain and educate her son" as his father led the family among various Baptist churches, where he preached.<ref>http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/archs/wright/bio/index.html</ref> Wright then attended high school but dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0942394/bio</ref>

In addition, a number of prominent people have chosen to homeschool their children. [[David Guterson]], author of the novel ''Snow Falling on Cedars'' (1994), which won the 1995 [[PEN/Faulkner Award]], also wrote ''Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense'' (1992), an account of his family's homeschooling journey. <ref>www.randomhouse.com: David Guterson [http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/read/snow/guterson.html]</ref> Actor and recording artist Will Smith and his wife actress Jada Pinkett Smith homeschool their children. <ref>Reader's Digest: Will Power: Will Smith is One Driven Guy[http://www.rd.com/content/will-smith-interview/1/]</ref>. Roseanne Barr stated in an interview that she has started to homeschool her 11-year-old son.<ref>Reuters Interview - Roseanne Barr says age gives her a louder voice
[http://in.news.yahoo.com/070322/137/6dlba.html]</ref> Jimmy Wales, co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], also homeschools.<ref>http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html</ref> Kristin Maguire, head of the [[South Carolina]] board of education, which governs all its [[public schools]], homeschools all four of her children.<ref>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/09/17stjour.h27.html</ref>
----

== Arguably Homeschooled ==
Lists abound of famous homeschooled achievers, some more accurate than others.<ref>http://www.eadshome.com/Famoushomeschooled.htm</ref><ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref>. The following people have been found on such lists. Their educational background has not yet been researched by Conservapedia editors. ['''Note: everyone is invited to find citations for these listed below and with the citations move them up to the category above.''']

*'''Military'''
**[[Stonewall Jackson]]
**[[Douglas MacArthur]]

* '''Inventors and Scientists'''
**[[Alexander Graham Bell]] (1847-1922), inventor of the telephone.
**[[George Washington Carver]]
**[[Pierre Curie]]
**[[Cyrus McCormick]]
**[[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
**[[Booker T. Washington]]

*'''Leaders'''
**[[George Washington]]
**[[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
**[[James Madison]]
**[[William Henry Harrison]]
**[[John Tyler]]
**[[George Clymer]]
**[[William Livingston]]
**[[George Mason]]
**[[Charles Pickney III]]
**[[George Wyeth]]
**[[Patrick Henry]]
**[[William Penn]]
**[[Henry Clay]]
**[[John Jay]]
**[[John Marshall]]
**[[John Rutledge]]

*'''Religious Figures'''
**[[William Cary]]
**[[Jonathan Edwards]]
**[[Dwight L. Moody]]
**[[John Newton]]
**[[Charles Wesley]]
**[[John Wesley]]
**[[Brigham Young]]

*'''Writers'''
**[[Hans Christian Andersen]]
**[[Robert Browning]] (1812-1889), a brilliant English poet.
**[[Pearl S. Buck]]
**[[Bret Harte]]
**[[C. S. Lewis]]
**[[Sean O’Casey]]

*'''Artists and Social Figures'''
**[[Claude Monet]]
**[[John Burroughs]]
**[[George Rogers Clark]]
**[[Florence Nightingale]]
**[[Leo Tolstoy]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
*[[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]
*[[Homeschooling in England and Wales]]
[[Category:Education]]

==External links==
*[http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm Christian Children Must Have More Than A Fighting Chance] - Four reasons to homeschool your children, by [[Art Robinson]]
*[http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm] - List of homeschooled achievers.

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-03-20T01:00:02Z

PeterS: "Nearly every great mathematician"

==Private Tutoring==

Does private tutoring really count as homeschooling? I don't see why it should. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homschoolers at harvard.==
I read it some were, but it is true that 10% of students in a classroom at Harvard were homseschooled. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:For a claim like that, I doubt "I read it somewhere" works; finding a citation shouldn't be hard if it's true, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will try to find it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Great! Find a citation *first*, then feel free to add it to the article. Since only about 2% of kids are homeschooled, it would be astounding to find 10% at Harvard. Also note that 10% in a particular classroom is not the same as 10% of the Harvard student body. If your statement is true, then it deserves much more prominence in the article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Alright I found the information, but I was wrong. 10% of the Students accepted are homeschooled.:) so am I.... not going to Harvard though. so if you still want the link i can get it, or if not, no problem. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, make sure it's 10% of accepted students are homeschooled, not 10% of homeschooled applicants are accepted. Then go ahead and add it, just make sure you quote it properly (very important for statistics) and include the citation, including the title, etc. so it will show up nicely in the references section. Thanks for adding to this article!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Who are you by the way mom? I mean you sound like you have been here longer than I have, and thats a long time.ok here is the link: [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked/ homeschoolers at Harvard] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
: I'm a homeschooling mom, of course! <smile>. Will, the statistic was what I suspected. It said that homeschoolers have an acceptance rate of 10%, which is the same as the general acceptance rate at Harvard. On the one hand, it doesn't show homeschoolers doing any better than anyone else, but on the other hand, it does show they can do *as well as* anyone else. Why don't you do a bit more research and write a paragraph about homeschoolers getting into college? The one in the article is a good model - I bet you can find a few other sources too, and come up with something quite worthwhile! Now I'm off to do my housework, but will check back to see what you've come up with! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That Boston Globe article is excellent, it's a real "find." I'm going to follow Hsmom's lead and let Will N. draft something rather than do something with it myself.

I can't figure out exactly what the sentence means: "At Harvard, the acceptance rate of the general applicant pool is about 10 percent, which mirrors the success of home-schoolers." I read it the same way Hsmom does, but it's not perfectly clear.

However, it says specifically that the acceptance rate of homeschoolers at ''Williams College'' (a famous, excellent, old, small liberal arts college) is 20 percent. And [http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm this article] says that William's general acceptance rate is 19.2%. In other words, a homeschoolers are exactly as successful in gaining admission to Williams as anyone else.

The key point to be made, which should be supported with well-chosen quotations from the Globe article, is that homeschoolers are just as successful at being admitted to major colleges as others, and that these days college admissions offices are familiar with homeschooling and have no problem with it. I like the line: "We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives."

If homeschoolers are about as successful at getting accepted as the general population, and if homeschoolers currently amount to something like 2% of all students, then ''presumably'' the percentage of Harvard students who were homeschooled would be 2%. 2% of 6700 = about 130 in all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

----

I would dispute saying Patton was a Christian as he believed in reincarnation (show me where this is in line with scripture)
Brigham Young was a Mormon, not a christian.

:Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

:The official name of their church is ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' ("LDS Church" for short).

:See material I've just moved to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Mormons' relationship to Christianity]].

:One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." It seems to me that Mormons meet that definition.

:Who ought to make the judgement, among all the denominations that regard themselves as Christian, which are "really Christian?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:P. S. The question of what Mormons believe is sure to receive a lot of discussion in a year or so, since Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is running for President. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:14, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Are you a Mormon? Not to be prejudiced against you if you are but just wondering.
Will N.

*No, I'm not a Mormon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:I probably should explain more. I did react to the phrase "a Mormon not a Christian." What went through my mind, and what I knew ''off the top of my head'' was: "Whoa! That's not right. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, and the church is even called Church of ''Jesus Christ'' of the Latter-day Saints." I also got just a little bit of steam up, because there '''is''' some discrimination against Mormons—assuming Mitt Romney runs I think we'll have plenty of chance to see this soon—and saying that Mormons aren't Christians sounds a little like an attack.

:So, after I wrote what I knew off the top of my head, from my experience with Wikipedia and with college, etc. I've found that if you want to convince other people, instead of just telling them what you think, it helps if you can show them ''why'' you think that. So I decided to do a bit of very quick research. I figured that Mormons probably get asked this question a lot and that the official LDS church website would probably have something to say about it.

:First I found the passage I put in quotation marks above, the one that begins "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I probably should have stopped there, but when I saw that they actually have a "Frequently Asked Questions" page with answers to the questions "Are you Christians" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?" I couldn't resist putting that in, too. I probably put in too much. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Ben Franklin was a Deist --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:Yes, that's right... no time to look further but I'm pretty sure Franklin did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and did not belong to an organized Christian church. Guess the whole list needs checking? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Homeschooled or not?==

I made a minor edit to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart entry today reflecting the fact that he was homeschooled. This was almost immediateley changed back by dpbsmith, with the explanation that "he wasn't homeschooled as we know the term today"

Now, this is all well and good, except that in the article for omeschooling, his name is on the list of famous people who were homeschooled, with an internal link to theMozart article!

So which is it? Was he homeschooled or not? And please, this is isn't an attempt to start a big discussion of the meaning of homeschooling etc. I'm just asking for some consistency between articles here. Either a person was homeschooled, in which case their entries should be amended to reflect that fact, or they should be removed from the list of "Famous people who were homeschooled."

I'll wait a bit to see what the consensus is, but if their names are still on that list in a few days, I'm going to fix those articles to reflect that fact.
--[[User:TrueReaganConservative|TrueReaganConservative]] 13:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds—Emerson.

:The thing is that ''this'' article is sort of a hash. I haven't wanted to take this sorry article entire, shatter it to bits and remould it nearer to my heart's desire because I think it's here as a sort of inspiration to the students who use the site. It looks to me like one of those "X pride" lists where X is any group that is a little out of the mainstream and wants to encourage its members that it's OK.

:The quickest way to fix ''this'' article would be retitle the actual list something like "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home."

:This isn't really a factual article about homeschooling, it's a point-of-view piece that says that being educated at home not only does not put you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis public or private schools, it can be an advantage. ''This is very arguably true'' and the list is evidence in support of it.

:What the list is ''not'' is a list of people who have undergone "Christian homeschooling."

:Homeschooling is a sort of movement, mostly in the U. S. I think, that began more or less in the 1970s. Around that time there was a noticable drop in public confidence in the public schools. Maybe I remember it had something to do with John Holt? ''How Children Fail?''

:"Homeschooling" to me does not mean simply being educated at home. It means that parents have ''actively opted out'' of an ''existing system of compulsory public schooling,'' and educate their children at home in order to assert direct personal supervision of the content and values that their children are being taught.

:Calling Mozart (say) "homeschooled" is like calling Thomas Jefferson "a Republican" or William Gladstone "a Liberal" or asserting "Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin were both Georgians." Technically true, but confusing at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll defer to the consensus view, but I don't see why Mozart should be eliminated. He was homeschooled in a Christian manner. What's the big deal about observing that fact? I don't think there has to have been compulsory education in his day to make this observation meaningful. At a minimum, Mozart is an example of someone who learned at home and excelled afterwards. Probably his home education has something to do with his work. This is information worth preserving, and let readers debate as they wish. As Fox News says, "We report. You decide."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==George Bernard Shaw==
'''George Bernard Shaw'''... hmmm... I don't think he would have cared for being labelled as a Christian. You can make out a case that he did accept some of the moral teachings of Jesus ''as Shaw, personally'' interpreted them. But in his will, he wrote:

:My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative revolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,813999,00.html]

If he was a Christian, he was an awfully complicated and unusual Christian. He certainly did not belong to any organized denomination. He wrote that there was “not a single established religion in the world in which an intelligent or educated man could believe."

He did write that "Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it." And he wrote that "Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly." That is, he did not think any organized Christian religions actually practiced the teachings of Jesus.

He wrote a lot about Christianity in his Preface to ''Androcles and the Lion.'' I'm not going to try to summarize it, partly because I haven't read it through in a long time, but also because Shaw's ideas are so very original and unorthodox that they are really hard to pigeonhole.

He dealt with religious themes in his plays ''Saint Joan,'' ''Major Barbara,'' and ''Androcles and the Lion,'' and in their prefaces, but if you can tell "which side" he's on after reading those plays, you're better than I am.

He also dealt with evolution, in the play ''Back to Methuselah'' and the Preface to it—in a way which will not please either evolutionists or creationists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:10, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I question the inclusion of '''Mark Twain,''' similarly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:32, 20 January 2007 (EST)

== Recent additions ==

Harpie Snark recently added John Walker Lindh, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Christopher Paolini to the list. I deleted them when reverting some vandalism.

I'm restoring Charles Fletcher Lummis and Christopher Paolini on his say-so.

Franklin D. Roosevelt attended Groton, an elite private prep school.

John Walker Lindh is a Taliban member and Adam Yahiye Gadahn is an Al-Qaeda member. I don't think they should go onto the list without a pretty good source citation, on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or, in this case, surprising claims require good evidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:Christopher Paolini is the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). I know he was home schooled, but have never seen anything about his beliefs. I asked to judge by his writing, I would tend to think he is not a Christian based on some elements of his books such as the atheism of the elves. So if anyone has a source for this, please post it. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:45, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Raw results:

::There's a source for his being home-schooled, anyway: [http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934 A profile of Christopher Paolini], "He was home-schooled by his parents, Kenneth Paolini and Talita Hodgkinson, through an accredited correspondence course at American School, Chicago, Illinois from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Gadahn apparently was home-schooled: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/27/CALIF.TMP 'Average American boy' accused as terrorist], Adam was the oldest of four children, all of whom were home-schooled.

::A lot of Google hits on Lindh being home-schooled, but it's all blogs... Some stuff about in Google Books about Lindh "beginning life as a Christian" but turning to Islam "in high school."

:[http://knowledgehouse.info/famous.html This page] credits Lummis as begin home-schooled but does not itself cite its sources... No clear whether or not this is supposed to be a list of home-schooled ''Christians...'' FDR listed, Groton not explained... She also lists Paolini... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Good. Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm removing the Wikipedia references because Wikipedia itself does not consider Wikipedia articles reliable sources that can be cited in other articles.

:FDR: I'm adding a note to the FDR entry, because it seems to me to be a borderline case; I don't think private tutors and Groton would be everyone's idea of what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Lindh: I don't really know what to make of the [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org BlessedCause] reference, both because I don't understand what the site is about... but in any case, I do ''not'' see where it identifies Lindh as being ''Christian'' homeschooled. In fact if I understand the article it says there's a dispute about where he went to school, and says that according to Houghton Mifflin, he went to a public middle school in Marin County—an assertion which the site attacks. The Wikipedia article says he was homeschooled starting at age 12, but does not say he was ''Christian'' homeschooled. Wikipedia's own source for that item (wrongly formatted in the article) is a web page entitled [http://www.rickross.com/reference/islamic/islamic56.htm The Making of John Walker Lindh]. I read it as saying that he was in and out of public schools, and I do not see anything to suggest that his homeschooling resembles what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Gadahn: The source you cite says, pretty clearly I think, "Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups. (At the time, nearly all such groups in the region were Christian," so I don't see any question that ''he'' was "Christian homeschooled." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Actually, there's a problem of definition here... this article has never defined exactly what the criterion is for inclusion in the list. Gadahn would be a good example of someone who clearly did undergo "Christian homeschooling," and certainly was "homeschooled," but surely was not "a Christian" and therefore not a "homeschooled Christian." I think this could use some discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::That strikes me as what will be viewed by our critics as pretty obvious nitpicking and cherrypicking of sources. Reading the sources I provided, it's clear that all three had Christian upbringings and were homeschooled, despite their subsequent failings. As for Adam Gadahn, "''The Gadahns homeschooled Adam''" and "''Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups''" are clear and explicit. There's no ambiguity there; Adam Gadahn was Christian homeschooled. And the source, The New Yorker, is as good as they get. [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. Better to just put all the cards on the table, deal with them and let the chips fall where they may. As I've said before on my talk page, either CP is going to have an accurate and complete article on homeschooling or it's going to have to censor information from it's articles which may be considered unfavorable to its stated orientation, it can't always have both. This is as good an article as any to choose which it's going be, right here, right now. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that it is hard given this evidence not to list Gadahn. The others are less persuasive. We need to resolve whether this is a list of Christians who were homeschooled, people who were Christian homeschooled, people who are Christian who happen to have been homeschooled, or Christians who were Christian homseschooled (I think that covers the 4 obvious possibilities). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:: I commented on Harpie's talk page but now realize that the debate is here. I'll only respond here now about this issue.

:: As anyone familiar with homeschool support groups knows, simply hanging around a loosely affiliated group does not make one a "Christian homeschooler" any more than living in a neighborhood makes one a member of the majority religion. The description of Gadahn is clear that he attended Christian homeschooling groups out of necessity, not by choice. This does not make him a Christian homeschooler any more than attending Georgetown Univ. made Bill Clinton a Catholic college student. As to Lindh, there is nothing Christian about his homeschooling or his own religion, so that's not even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::: Notice that if we can agree to let the title of the actual list be "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home," that includes Mozart and excludes Lindh and Gadahn. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Frankly the only thing necessary for a run-of-the-mill homeschooler to be a Christian homeschooler is intent on the part of the parents to provide a proper Christian education and action by them to keep them out of school and deliver a superior quality education at home themselves. Reading the New Yorker article it seems clear that this was the intent of the Gadahn's for young <s>Azzam</s> Adam, no matter how terribly they failed: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] Now arguing that Adam Gadahn was not Christian homeschooled because he didn't chose to but rather was compelled to is a red herring; many Christian homeschooled children would prefer to be playing ''Left Behind: Eternal Forces'' rather than studying math, so by that standard not many Christian homeschooled children would qualify as being Christian homeschooled. Meaning this rationale again opens us up to the lefty criticism that we exclude unfavorable facts from our articles, in other words, engaging in partisan, ideologically-motivated censorship. So if Aschlafly as the owner of this site really wants to exclude Gadahn as he seems to, we'd better set to work coming up with a reasonable-appearing justification for doing so that has at least a veneer of scholary fairness; regardless of what our motivations are, I'd think we'd want to avoid appearing to be censoring unfavorable facts in order to further our agenda. Thoughts? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 19:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Harpie, there's no "censorship" or "exclu[sion]" here. The New Yorker article simply does not support the claim that Gadahn was a Christian homeschooler. The article says that, out of necessity, Gadahn was forced to associate with homeschool "support groups" for some of his teenage years. That association not necessarily even education. Every indication is that Gadahn was not Christian then, and is not now either.

:::: Also, I might add, nearly 99% of Christian homeschoolers start early. It seems to me that both Gadahn and Lindh were latecomers to homeschooling long after their personalities and attitudes had formed. Often the latecomers are just passing through and are not influenced much by homeschooling. Contrast that with Mozart.

:::: I think Dpbsmith has proposed an ideal solution. Certainly he captures the intent of the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Kind of like a book about "Famous Irish That Don't Drink". This ''is'' a brilliant solution! Now I understand how to handle situations like this. Since we don't engage in censorship or exclusion, we just need to find the right way to frame the issue that by necessity keeps any unfavorable facts out. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 12:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I love your sarcastic enthusiasm-- it '''''really''''' strengthens your points more than talking straight could ever hope to. Even so, Ashlafly has a good point; Dpbsmith accurately capptured the intent of the list.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, they say a little bit of honey makes the medicine go down better. Look, I've been in conservative political PR now for nearly 20 years and know a little something about crafting credible, effective messages, and we'd be a lot more credible and better off in the long term were we to follow the rationale I provided above. Our goal should not be to just get out the message, but to get out a credible and compelling one, and this subject and article is just one of many that will face this same issue. If we go around trumpeting our own version of reality while ignoring the one that is shared by all we run the risk of being caricatures of our own cause and ultimately all too easily dismissed by those we hope to convince. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:34, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Expand this article==
I'm not the person to do it. I know nothing about homeschooling, sent both of my kids to public schools (and state universities), hope I've got stuff sorta-kinda right, hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but, this should be an article where there's ''lots'' of expertise available. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Let me be more emphatic. There could be a '''lot''' more factual material about homeschooling here. Resources. Books. Tips on dealing with the authorities and how to jump through the legal hoops (I assume there are still some to jump through). There's an obvious opportunity here for people to add encyclopedic material that is informed by their personal experience and expertise. Say someone wants to homeschool in New Jersey or whereever. What office do you go to? What forms do you fill out? etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think this is a good place to try to compile info about state homeschooling laws. There are other places that specialize in that. On the other hand, I agree that the article needs some serious work. Some thoughts:

Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool. I'm uncomfortable with this general statement - while in some (many) cases it is true, there are lots of active parents with kids in public or private school (especially small church schools, I'm guessing), and there are homeschooling parents who simply hire a tutor (or several) and let them have at it.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.
In fact, different families have different reasons for homeschooling, usually more than one. Religion may (or may not) be a factor; so might the quality of education. But there are other reasons - a child who is not being well-served by the public schools, a child who has a special talent or interest they wish to focus on, a family who wants to travel with dad on business, a family who lives in a very rural area far from schools (or who is sailing around the world, etc.), and so on. Various surveys have been done trying to rank the reasons, but I think we'd be better off with a list of possible reasons rather than trying to rank them. Homeschoolers are notoriously hard to count or survey.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s. 
On the other hand, *lots* of kids were educated at home in earlier centuries, and certain cultures (Native American?) may not have had "schools" at all back then. Also, the 1852 date sounds too late to me, though I could be wrong - can we get a cite there?

:I just added one. There seemed to be one there already. Another, which reads well but not quite sure of the source, is [http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/compulso.html Compulsory Education]. Apparently Horace Mann—whose name is instantly familiar to me as an "educator," but of whom I know little more—was active in getting them to do it. Massachusetts had ''public'' schools much earlier, but apparently they were not compulsory. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Also - is there a reason for listing Christian homeschoolers? Why not just list people who were educated at home (in one form or another), and then give a brief explaination of their situation - e.g. Sandra Day OConnor, educated at home when she was young as the ranch she lived on was very remote, or whatever.

A lot of thoughts - hope they are helpful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Prominent homeschooled Christians? ==

By your own definition, you have to "opt out" of formal education to be considered "homeschooled." Thus, I'm curious what system DaVinci, Washington, et al, opted out of.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's why, some time ago, I changed the title of the '''list''' to "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home." Homeschooling as we know it in the United States essentially began in the 1970s. This very interesting article on [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/SAI/homeschool/index.html Homeschoolers: Estimating Numbers and Growth] suggests that there were about a million homeschoolers circa 1998. However, in the "late 1970s and early 1980s" it says "about 10,000 to 15,000" children received their education at home. At a very rough guess, today's U. S. adult population probably includes less than 100,000 people over 21, probably less than 25,000 people over 30, and practically none over 40. Not a large population, and not enough time to become spectacularly high achievers... yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the definition part to remove the "opt out" wording - it is somewhat an attempt to address your concern above, and also an attempt to put the emphasis on what homeschoolers *do* (learn outside of school), than what they *don't do* (go to school). Not perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I think that this kind of simplistic list can be a bit meaningless. Better would be a list of people with unconventional educations or minimal formal education with a brief explanation of their circumstances. For example, you could say something like "Benjamin Franklin - had one year of formal schooling, apprenticed with his brother as a printer." (Or whatever - not sure of the details on Franklin, but you get the idea.) I also think that whether the person was Christian could be handled similarly in the brief note, rather than in the heading. In addition, I don't think *anyone* should be on the list unless there is a *citation* to a source explaining their education. See my addition of Andrew Wyeth as an example. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:The nature of the list just boggles my mind. It ignores the point raised by AmesG (which I still read into it despite the "educated at home" part) that "homeschooling" needs a formal alternative to have a meaningful definition. Also, why only Christians? I'm still boggled... [[User:Human|Human]] 22:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Drawbacks ==

I'm moving this here for discussion. As it stands, it seems to me to be pure, unsupported personal opinion:
:Homeschooling is not without its drawbacks. Studies have noted that children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts. [http://justenough.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/homeschoolers-are-indeed-weird/] This lack of legitimate socialization can produce difficulties in homsechooled childred engaging in meaningful relationships with individuals outside of their family. Additionally, while the public school playground can be seen as a barbaric atmosphere to most kids who are schooled at home, it is important to note that these exigent circumstances can produce valuable conflict prevention skills that pay dividends in all facets of life.

No doubt there are drawbacks to homeschooling. The claim that "children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts" is, however, referenced only to a blog entry by someone identified only as "Tammy," no other identification or credentials—''and it does not support the statement.'' The title of the entry is "Homeschoolers are indeed weird," but she does ''not'' say homeschoolers are less socialized—that's apparently [[User:Huey gunna getcha]]'s ''interpretation.'' She means "weird" in a good way: tolerant of different opinions and not afraid to express individuality.

The sentence about the "public school playground" providing "valuable conflict prevention skills" is plausible but unsupported. (By the way: are parochial school playgrounds, or non-school playgrounds very different?)

A friend once remarked that he was astonished whenever anyone made reference to "the happy sounds of children at play." "Haven't they actually paid attention when they pass a playground?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good catch! I had read that article earlier today and put removing that section on my "to do" list - you beat me to it! FWIW, when looking at homeschoolers and socialization, it's also important to consider that some children are not odd because they are homeschooled, rather, they are homeschooled because they are odd. Homeschooling can be an understanding "safe haven" for those odd kids for whom school may be "barbaric" indeed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

i was almost kicked off my baseball team cause i was homeschooled and i was playing for the middle school. i was fortunate to be kept on. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/zysk1.html
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf
A few of the thousands of references on Homeschooling and Socialization. As an educator and homeschool parent I have searched for years to find data that supports the claim that homeschoolers are lacking in good social skills. Having met hundreds of HS kids from all ages, I never found one that wasn't able in a wide variety of social situations. Indeed ''all'' of the HS teens I met were a delight to talk with and had no problems talking with adults on a wide range of topics, unlike thier Public or Private or Parochial schooled peers who always seem so sullen and distant around adults they don't know - and even those they do. After searching the academic journals and every other source I could look at, I found a lot of research on HS and Socialization and none that found widespread negative effects. While someone may find a kid here and there as an anecdote to say HS is isolating and promotes poor social development, I could probably come up with dozens of Public, private and parochial school kids to show the alleged deliterious effects of those types of schooling on the social skills of kids. Third Day May 8

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Cleaning up the list - putting uncited people on the talk page==
The list of homeschooled people for whom there are no citations has been here for too long, IMHO. I am moving these people here, to the discussion page. I hope this is OK with all of you. As each person's education is researched and cited, we can add them back to the list, preferably with a brief sentence explaining who they are and what form their education took (as we have now already for several people). As discussed above, I think it will be easier to describe the religious beliefs of each person individually (if needed in this context), rather than try to decide if they are generically Christian or not. Please jump in and research one of these people so we can build up this article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: I left in Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, George Bernard Shaw, and Mark Twain, because their entries had *something* other than their names, and because they were discussed quite a bit here; however these can/should be improved by adding a brief description of who they are/were, adding a brief description of their education, and/or adding citations, preferably ones that describe their education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the George Bernard Shaw entry.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::If it were up to me I'd make this list contemporary (20th century, maybe 19th too) personalities. As it was pointed out earlier, as the homeschooling term is used today, the majority of these wouldn't count. Also, way back in the day, practically everyone was homeschooled. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Do we really need this comprehensive a list? Isn't it enough to point out a few folks who were homeschooled? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I saw that list from a source and have reinserted. I took out the ridiculous Lindh reference and other liberal bias. For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith! Frankly, this entry looked like something one would see on Wikipedia. We're not trying to be like Wikipedia here. Thanks and I'll try to find citations for the names I reinserted. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I saw that list from "a source," too, but it was just that: a list. Some homeschooling-related site. It did not say where the list came from nor did it give any sources at all. I think the list may be just bouncing around the Internet. What was ''your'' source? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::''For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith!'' I'm not sure I agree with this. It is not supported by the citation given for that paragraph. In fact, religion was *third* in the list of reasons for homeschooling provided in the citation, with only 29.8% citing it as their most important reason. If you are going to assert this, it would be best to add an additional citation that backs it up. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html According to the US Census, 33% cited Religion as a motivation for HS. My citation is older than the one used in this article. Mine says 33% cite religion (not Christianity, but Religion) and the more recent survey cited by ASchafly says 29% cite Religion. Homeschoolin is becoming more and more popular and common and the fastest growing group of HSers are not citeing religion as thier motivation. This is a very interesting development. May 8 [Third Day]

:: OK, fine, I'll look for citations and add them. But I've personally taught over 120 homeschoolers, and I'd say religion is the motivation for 100 or so of them. The other reasons given, such as avoidance of drugs in school, are not even factors for the vast majority of homeschoolers.

:: Also, I will find more citations for the 61 people under the "arguably homeschooled" list and move them to the higher list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm guessing that your classes are taught from an Evangelical Christian perspective, which would make it less likely that non-Christians would sign up for them. You may also know other Christian homeschoolers from church and other social activities. In addition, Christian homeschooling groups often ask members to sign a statement of faith, effectively excluding those who aren't Christian - if one of these groups is your main contact with the homeschooling community, you will get a very skewed impression of the homeschooling population. So it makes sense that the majority of homeschoolers you know are Christian and that they homeschool "to protect the Christian faith of their children and to preserve their family values." For many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers, this is a good thing - they want to raise their children in a community of people who share their beliefs and values. But there have always been homeschoolers who are doing it for reasons of educational philosophy (wanting more of a child-led approach, or stronger academics than their local public school, or logistics (like if the family travels frequently due to Dad's job), or issues with their particular child (like Aspberger's syndrome), etc.), and this category is growing as homeschooling becomes more mainstream. (Growing Without Schooling, a secular homeschooling magazine, started publication in 1977.) In addition, some of those who homeschool for religious reasons are not Christian - they may be homeschooling to protect the Jewish faith of their children, for example. Certainly personal experience is a useful data point, and surveying homeschoolers can be quite difficult. Perhaps you can find some research to support your claim. Let's just be careful when we extrapolate based on our own experiences. We need to set a good example for our students.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your comment has some truth but lacks a sense of proportion. Parents who homeschool to keep their kids off drugs are about 1/1000th as many as parents who homeschool for Christian purposes. Your comments and edits to the entry seem to avoid recognizing the obvious: the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. There is a whole college devoted to this market (Patrick Henry College). How many colleges are there for atheistic homeschoolers? Our entries need to reflect reality, and reality includes proportions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I completely agree that keeping kids off of drugs does not, in my experience, drive a lot of parents to homeschool. (On the other hand, I do not live in the inner city - my experience might be different than families in whose neighborhoods drugs are a more serious presence.) I would still disagree, though, that the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. I know many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers who are homeschooling to preserve their children's Christian faith. However, I also know many homeschoolers of other faiths, and many who are Christian or Catholic but for whom faith is not among their reasons for homeschooling. I wrote the "reasons" paragraph based on the study I cited. I believe someone above cited another study, which also found that it was not the case that a majority of homeschoolers did so for religious reasons. I am willing to believe that my personal observations and these two studies are not representative of the homeschooling population, if we can find something to back that up. These are certianly not the only studies out there, and I think it would be good if we can find some other references to compare to them. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Arguably Homeschooled ==

How do you define homeschooled? Had some education at home? A formal school education was available but did not attend? Dropped out of school at age something? Without such a definition, many of the names on the list are frankly, silly and/or wishful thinking. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

An example of this - Mark Twain is listed on the list. From the biography of Mark Twain[http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml] it reads:
<blockquote>In 1847, when Sam was 11, his father died. Shortly thereafter he left school, having completed the fifth grade, to work as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His job was to arrange the type for each of the newspaper's stories, allowing Sam to read the news of the world while completing his work.</blockquote>
In 1847, a 5th grade education was quite sufficient for day to day life and working as an apprentice for a local newspaper was a reasonable continuation of his education. It is not homeschooling. It would probably be more useful to first put the person on the talk page and figure out if they were homeschooled and then added to the main page rather than put on the main page without refrence and then removed when they don't fit the definition (whatever that may be). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. I have found several times in the past that someone on a list of this kind was not actually educated at home. I think, if we are going for a high level of accuracy that befits an encyclopedia, we should do the research ourselves first, using the talk page to discuss. Then we should add the person to the list, and be sure to explain how each person was educated. I don't think we need to have a strict definition of homeschooling; rather, we should describe each person's experience. The result will be a list with an interesting variety of approaches to education.

I've added Mark Twain's famous quote, which is proof enough.

More generally, these lists abound on the internet. I've added a cite. No one really disputes that most or all of these people, and others too, were homeschooled. We can continue to fill in cites, but there is no need to censor this info in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I don't think this is proof that he was homeschooled, only that he sees the difference between schooling and education, and realizes that education can come from places other than school. I'd like to know more about his education before adding him to the list. (But your sandbox, etc, so I'll leave him there.)

::I agree that lists such as these abound - but here, a higher standard exists. It is not censorship to be sure something is accurate before adding it to the article proper, and the information is available to all on the talk page while the research is being done. Students who want to use these people as examples in their work should know enough about the individual's education to be sure it is indeed an example of what they are writing about. Brief descriptions of the person's education, along with a cite or two about it, will be very useful to our readers. A list without this information, not so much. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Sam was always a good-hearted boy," his mother once remarked, "but he was a very wild and mischievous one, and, do what we would, we could never make him go to school. This used to trouble his father and me dreadfully, and we were convinced that he would never amount to as much in the world as his brothers, because he was not near so steady and sober-minded as they were." At school, he "excelled only in spelling"; outside of school he was the prototype of his own Huckleberry Finn, mischievous and prankish, playing truant whenever the opportunity afforded. "Often his father would start him off to school," his mother once said, "and in a little while would follow him to ascertain his whereabouts. There was a large stump on the way to the schoolhouse, and Sam would take his position behind that, and as his father went past would gradually circle around it in such a way as to keep out of sight. Finally, his father and the teacher both said it was of no use to try to teach Sam anything, because he was determined not to learn. But I never gave up. He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref> I'm not sure that I would consider this to be homeschooling, especially as his truancy was against his parents' wishes, though he certainly had an autodidact's view of education. I have added a fuller discription of his education to the article, so that readers can decide for themselves. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm breaking my self-imposed examtime exile to ask this question. Isn't it kind of facetious to say that most of those people were homeschooled, when no formal schooling existed? It's sort of like making a big fuss out of someone from the 1600s being a creationist - of course he was, there was no alternative! Or, like saying, "Jesus didn't believe in global warming." Well... of course not. The controversy didn't exist back then. It creates an idea of conscious choice and rejection of an idea, when there was no such thing. Example: Joan of Arc? There were no formal schools in France at the time. Put another way, could you name someone from before 1700 who was ''not'' homeschooled until college? Just seems a little facetious to me. K, back to the books.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The point is not to say that someone succeeded by rejecting public school, but that someone succeeded from homeschooling. The latter observation is true and meaningful regardless of whether public schools existed. We don't care as much '''why''' someone was homeschooled as whether it was effective.

:: Sure, I can think of people who lived before 1700 but were not homeschooled: the illiterate, of whom there were many.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, that's true. But the point that others are making is that the tone of the article suggests that you're suggesting that they rejected public schools, or were part of the homeschooling "movement." Would you mind if I clarified it, to better express your point, or would you like to? Perhaps something like, "Even before public schools were active, homeschooling produced many successful people worldwide. Here are some examples"? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::A previous version had such a statement - I think something like that should be included. I would also argue that the statement "a disproportionate number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled" has not been cited or proved, and I'm not sure it's accurate or (from a historical perspective), even meaningful. (See the Harvard discussion above, though of course college admittance is not a great measure of success in life - but that's a whole 'nother conversation.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problem with your approach is that most of the people on the list did reject formal or public school, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that's true for many of the historical figures. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the list, if it actually describes the education each person had, shows that there are a wide variety of approaches to education which can be successful. This can be very useful in an age where educational standardization is being pushed - having all kids learn the same material in the same grade, etc. It's also nice for homeschooled kids to see that they are not so much an oddity as part of a long line of people who did a significant amount of learning outside of school. There's a reason you often see lists of successful minorities - it is very helpful to members of the minority group to havfe these role models, even if their lives aren't exactly parallel. I agree that it's problematic to call it "homeschooling" before, say, the last 50-100 years, but "educated at home", or "educated outside of formal schools" usually fits. At the same time, I think a long list of names without individualized information about their education is not particularly useful, and quite frankly lowers the standard of research and accuracy here. Again, we are setting an example for the students, homeschooled and not, who we expect will use this information in their work. If we expect them to present work that is well-researched and cited from credible sources which are themselves clearly well-researched, shouldn't we be doing the same?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

#In place of the list ''in the article'', how about tagging each person's biography page with [[:Category:Homeschooled]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Anyone educated before 1850 was probably not given "[[compulsory education]]" in the Mann or Dewey sense. In ''[[Little Women]]'' Mrs. March kept Amy home and had Jo teach her. Nothing unusual about that. We need an article on [[Primary education]] or [[History of education]] that gets into that. What proportion of children were educated, and how well? When and where? The one-room schoolroom, or a huge mega-school divided into grades by age? How about [[Educational reform]]s or "fads" like [[Whole language]] and its attack on [[phonics]], the [[New math]] and its ineffective ways of teaching [[arithmetic]]? (I'm tutoring some of my friends' kids, and it's a nightmare trying to counter the knuckleheaded strategies they mandate for doing "[[word problem]]s". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's enlightening to have the list in one easy-to-access place. It's striking. You might add your Little Women point also.
::: Arguably, the category would be easier to access than an article and would be dynamically updated as new biographies were added. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: As I said last night, the point is not that these individuals rejected public school (though many did), the point is that they achieved based on homeschooling. Why they homeschooled is a separate, and less important, issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I like the idea of a "homeschooled" category. However, I also like the list we are beginning to create here, assuming that we are careful to include a brief description of each person's education. It's very informative and inspiring to see the wide variety of ways these people were educated.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Christopher Paolini ==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], could you explain why you deleted Christopher Paolini from the list? He is a modern homeschooler, a best-selling author of a YA book series, and was clearly homeschooled. The list entry (copied below), was detailed and cited. Isn't this the kind of thing we want in the list? I haven't read his books -- perhaps there is an issue with their content I am unaware of? I'm not trying to challenge this decision, I just want to understand it. (Or perhaps it was a mistake?) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). He was home-schooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

:::Originally, it was a list of "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home" (well, actually it was "homeschooled Christians" but I proposed the title change to bypass issues about the meaning of the word "homeschooled.") This was the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&oldid=10078 original list]. Paolini was added later, and there was some issue about whether he was Christian. I don't know whether that's why Aschlafly didn't include him, or whether Aschlafly just wanted to go back to a list whose sincerity he trusts... some people had fun from time to time adding names of individuals educated at home who are better described as "notorious" than as "high-achieving." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The list could have come from [http://www.home4schoolgear.com/famoushomeschooler.html here] or [http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html here] or [http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm here] or [http://www.itwillpass.com/facts_famous_homeschoolers.shtml here]. There's probably one source for all of them but none of them credit it, much less give references for the individuals named being educated at home.

::::I've seen many of these lists over the years, almost none with explanations.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Of the few I fact-checked, some had problems. All of these Web lists, for example, list Franklin D. Roosevelt without comment, but Groton is not ''my'' idea of being educated at home. Conservapedia's article is currently adequately clear about Roosevelt's education. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes - exactly. That's why I keep going on and on about how important it is to give a brief description of each person's education - it shows the Conservapedia reader/user what form the person's education took (leaving the *reader* to decide if it counts as "homeschooling" for the reader's purposes), and in researching the brief description, we are also validating the list. I think it's just way more useful if it has been annotated in this way.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference 6==
I don't understand reference 6 in the article. What does it refer to? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think it's supposed to say "''ibid.''" I think there is a wiki markup that can be used to refer to a previously cited link, which is useful in case someone puts another footnote in between the 1st and 2nd cites, screwing up the "''ibid''" concept. But I forget how to do it. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: "id" is short for "ibid". It's supposed to refer to the preceding reference, though it possible another reference was inserted between the two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "name" feature of the ref tag. Format the first reference like this, with the actual reference text:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref></nowiki>
Format subsequent references like this:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp/></nowiki>

Repeated instances of the same reference name show up in the text with the same number. In the references section itself, the entry will contain links back to all the places in the text where the named reference appeared.

Example:

'''Markup:'''

<nowiki>
Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>
</nowiki>

'''Result:'''

Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>

==Disproportionate?==
There have been two introductory sentences to our list of prominent homeschoolers:
*''Throughout history, a disproportionate{{fact}} number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled. Here is a growing list of some of them:''
*''Throughout history, some high-profile people have been educated at home, though it should be noted that prior to the 19th century most children worldwide were educated within their family. Here is a list of some of them:''
:I think the first sentence is problematic because it makes a claim that is not supported by any kind of citation (''disproportionate''). I also think it would be hard to prove such a claim, because people's education was so varied before the twentieth century. For example, I don't mind including Mark Twain in our list of people educated outside of formal schooling, because I think he is an interesting case of someone who didn't have much of a traditional school-based education, yet went on to become a writer whose works are still in print a century later. However, I think many people of his time had only a 5th grade education, so if we were going to seriously look at the numbers, I don't think we could count him as "homeschooled". Can we work together here to come up with a sentence we can all agree on? Here's my first attempt (below) - please feel free to use it as a starting point for creating something better. Let's work on this here on the talk page until we reach consensus. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*''Throughout history, some prominent people have received some or all of their education outside of formal schooling. (Note that prior to the 19th century, many children were educated at home.) Here is a growing list of people whose educational backgrounds were quite different than today's norm.''

==Spelling of Homeschooling==
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] - Can I get some advice - I think you're probably the best person to ask. The Williams article uses "''home-schoolers''", which is largely rejected by the homeschooling community (at least in my experience). Should it get a (sic), especially since the article here uses ''homeschoolers''? (This whole spelling thing is a pet peeve of many homeschoolers.) Oh, and nice job on the college paragraph - and a double super nice job on the Mothers Day article! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks!

:Re the "spelling thing:" it's an issue I was unaware of. What's disliked about the hyphen? For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
::'''homeschool'''
::VARIANT FORMS: or home-school
::VERB: Inflected forms: home·schooled, home·school·ing, home·schools
::TRANSITIVE VERB: to instruct (a pupil, for example) in an educational program outside of established schools, especially in the home.
::INTRANSITIVE VERB: To provide educational instruction in a homeschool.
::NOUN: A school operated outside established educational institutions, especially in a home.
::OTHER FORMS: homeschooler
::[http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/H0253050.html]

:Their giving "home-school" as a "variant" would justify a ''[sic]'', so let's do that. Unfortunately there's another question: is a homeschooler a ''teacher,'' as their definition suggests, and, if so, what is the right word for a homeschooled ''pupil?''
:Anyway, sure, for now let's just put in the [sic] without explanation... until someone feels like writing a section on terminology and usage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''What's disliked about the hyphen?'' OK - not sure if I can write this well enough to make sense, but here goes. It's kind of like breastfeeding vs. breast feeding. It's the difference between a noun modified by an adjective, vs. a noun with a separate meaning. That is, breastfeeding is more than just feeding at the breast, more than just a different kind of feeding - it also provides antibodies to protect against disease, it has beneficial effects on mom's body, etc. Thus it deserves a noun all to itself. Same with homeschooling. It's more/different than just schooling that happens at home. Homeschooling includes opportunities and approaches to education that are dramatically different than what you'd find in school. Homeschooling is also often integrated into family life, so much so that it is often impossible to differentiate between the two. For example, reading a book for pleasure - for school kids, this is a "home" activity that has nothing to do with school. For homeschoolers, it is both school and not-school, wrapped up in each other (though of course both sets of kids obviously learn from reading on their own). In fact, homeschoolers talk about people doing "school at home", which generally describes trying to re-create the school model in the home without taking advantage of any of the benefits unique to homeschooling. It is not generally used in a positive context. "Home schooling" or "home-schooling" is often seen in articles written *about* homeschoolers by someone else - many spell checkers will flag "homeschooling", and many journalists will insist that their style guidelines don't allow "homeschooling". Nonetheless, almost everything written *by* homeschoolers uses the one-word form. It's one of those "call members of a minority what they want to be called" issues. (BTW - not trying to make a value judgment here - though I enjoy homeschooling, and it's been good for my kids, I think different kinds of schooling are appropriate for different kids & families - there is no "one best way" to educate children, IMHO.)
::As to who is the homeschooler, I would use "she is homeschooled" or "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooler" to refer to the student; "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooling mom" or "she homeschools her kids" to refer to the mom. "She is a homeschooler" referring to the mom is less common, I think because mom can't homeschool without the kids, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect - I would prefer "she is homeschooling" or "she homeschools". "They are homeschoolers", referring to the family, is appropriate. I guess when you're referring to the students and teacher(s) collectively it's right to call them all homeschoolers, but not so much the teacher by herself. (Excuse the sexist language here!)
::Note that in some states there is language that comes from the laws in that state. In some states, homeschoolers must be enrolled in some kind of "umbrella school" which provides oversight - technically, these are private school students. In Britain, homeschoolers are "educated otherwise" (if I remember right), from a phrase in their law. In Pennsylvania law there is no such thing as homeschooling - children are "home educated" or "privately tutored" or "enrolled in a public cyber-charter school" - this last one is very controversial, as most independent homeschoolers insist that students in schools run by the government are not homeschoolers, even if they do school at home. (Got that?! Public cyber-charter schools are essentially publicly-funded internet-based correspondence schools.) The idea here is that we must be careful not to confuse, especially in the mind of the general public and the legislature, traditional self-funded homeschooling and publicly-funded school-at-home. The concern is that such confusion could lead to more governmental oversight - if government money is being spent, then accountability (and control, and standardization) soon follows, and with accountability homeschoolers tend to be forced into doing things in a very school-at-home way, which many of us feel takes away the most effective parts of homeschooling. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Got it. Well articulated. The points about publicly-funded officially-supervised schooling at home is interesting. I think these topics ought to be touched on in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Notice something ==

Notice that all the famous people home schooled are very old or even dead? Hard to imagine Stephen Hawking being home schooled.

:Homeschooling as a modern phenomenon has only been around for a short time. As most people who become famous for Great Things do so later in life, it will be a while before the results of this Grand Experiment emerge. In addition, many Christian homeschoolers aspire to paths that don't typically result in fame, such as missionary work, etc. Still, point taken - we should add some modern folks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Realizing that homeschooling is primarily an alternative to public schools. Most homeschooling parents homeschool their children because for whatever reason they are dissatisfied with the public schools. I think that it harms the credability of this website to smack the label of homeschooling on anyone who predates public schools as we now think of them; ''most'' people back then would fit the loose standard for "homeschooled" on this page. For example, Jesus is listed as "arguably homeschooled". There is really can be no evidence for this and even if ther was his education would probably not fit our idea of homeschooling today--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 16:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Daniel Webster - Homeschooled? Or not so much?==

I'm not convinced that Daniel Webster can be described as "homeschooled", even though he got some college-prep tutoring. Here's what I've found about his education, combined with what [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has written. FWIW, the Dartmouth site is the most extensive, with lots of useful quotes from primary sources; the Notable Names site ''("updated as weather permits")'' seems the least scholarly, but I'm not finding much contradiction. There is a heck of a lot of schooling here, at a level way beyond most people of his time. I welcome everyone's thoughts.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::*[[Daniel Webster]] (1782-1852), prominent U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, recognized as one of the greatest orators in history. As the author of the first American dictionary, he is considered the father of the English language in America. Born in Salisbury, N.H., he attended district schools<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Daniel Webster[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000238]</ref> as a young lad.<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> He attended [[Phillips-Exeter Academy]] for about nine months in 1794. <ref>Notable Names Database Weblog: Daniel Webster[http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000024373/]</ref> Webster was then tutored by the Rev. Samuel Wood to prepare him to pass the rigorous oral exam required for entrance to Dartmouth.<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> In August of 1797<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801: The Road to Dartmouth[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref>, at the age of 16,<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> he enrolled in Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1801. <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/exhibit.html]</ref>

: Why doesn't this prove that Daniel Webster was homeschooled for high school? In addition, the passing reference about attending "district school" before that would not have amounted to much in the 1700s, particularly in New Hampshire. Those schools were not full-time school like today, and he would likely have learned the basics at home. The other links to Webster don't even mention the "district schools."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::I've been a bit confused about when he was at Exeter - looking into it further, according to a biography he wrote in 1829, he entered in May, 1796 and he left in Jan 1797.<ref>OLD STURBRIDGE VILLAGE - Online Resource Library: Daniel Webster, Autobiography, 1829[https://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?Action=View&DocID=1077]</ref> He was with Rev. Woods for no more than 7 months - he started in Feb 1797 and by Aug 1797 he had entered Dartmouth. As to the district schools, it sounds like his family went to great lengths to have him attend them. From the same source: ''My father seemed to have no higher object in the world, than to educate his children, to the full extent of his very limited ability. No means were within his reach, generally speaking but the small town schools. These were kept by teachers, sufficiently indifferent, in the several neighborhoods of the township, each a small part of the year. To these I was sent, with the other children. When the school was in our neighborhood, it was easy to attend; when it removed to a more distant district* I followed it, still living at home…When it removed still further, my father sometimes boarded me out*, in a neighboring family, so that I could still be in the school.'' I don't think we can ignore this, even if he, like many "youngest kids", learned to read from his mother or siblings at home. I can see your point, but I think it's a stretch to include him. Let's hear what other folks think.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: The Phillips-Exeter dates look wrong. People don't start high school in May at age 17. Nor would it make sense for Rev. Woods to tutor Webster for only a few months. There is at least a three year gap there to prepare for college, as one would expect, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::He would have been about 14 (1796 minus 1782), which jives with a couple of other sources which mention his age but not the year. The 1794 date comes from the Notable Names Database Weblog article, which doesn't look particularly scholarly and includes no citations. We could work it out more accurately if we looked up his birthday. [Why don't I do that! He was born January 18, 1782, which would make him 14 in May of 1796 when he entered Exeter (according to the autobiography quote), and 15 (give or take a few days) when he left. He would have started with Rev. Wood at 15, and been almost 16 (well, 15 1/2) by the time he began Dartmouth in Aug 1797.] I agree that May sounds like an odd time to start school, but I believe the British system, on which Phillips-Exeter may have been modeled, has different terms (semesters) than we are used to. 14 is the right age for high school today, and I do believe Dartmouth as to the dates he was there. Perhaps we can find more information to verify or refute the Exeter dates. Don't forget that Rev. Woods had planned to have Webster for longer: ''Mr. Wood put me upon Virgil and Tully; and I conceived a pleasure in the study of them, especially the latter, which rendered application no longer a task... In the spring I began the Greek grammar, and at midsummer Mr. Wood said to me: "I expected to keep you till next year, but I am tired of you, and I shall put you into college next month.'' <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> He also said that he was ''miserably prepared, both in Latin and Greek'', which is not surprising if he only studied for a few months! (Same source)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, here we go. Phillips Exeter themselves put the date as May 14, 1796, age 14. <ref>Phillips Exeter Academy: Academy Chronology[http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/4513_4622.aspx]</ref>--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Wright Brothers - Homeschooled? Or not?==
The article says:
:::*[[The Wright Brothers|Orville and Wilbur Wright]], inventors of the airplane. They did attend some school, but also learned at home from their father, who was a conservative minister, and their mother, who was the top mathematician in her college class.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/family.htm</ref> Neither Wright Brother earned a high school diploma, let alone college, and Orville Wright left high school after his junior year.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/trivia.htm</ref>
:Looking at the sources given, I saw that both brothers went to school, that Wilbur earned a high school diploma (but never picked up his certificate), and Orville left after 11th grade. While their parents taught them some interesting things (as do all good parents), I didn't see anything that implied that this was ever in lieu of going to school. While I'd love to claim these two as "one of us" (homeschoolers, that is), the sources given don't seem to give me any grounds to do so. Am I missing something? I'd like us to have a strong, well-researched list of people with interesting educational backgrounds. I welcome everyone's thoughts. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Update==
I have cleaned up the two lists of homeschoolers based on the discussions above. I have removed the Wright Brothers and Daniel Webster - if further research and discussion in the sections above shows them to be homeschoolers, we can add them back in. I have also moved two people from the first list to the second, because they didn't have any explanation of their education or any references. Because of our experience with the Wrights and Webster, we must view anyone on a "Famous Homeschooler" list we find on the internet with skepticism - they ''may'' have been homeschooled, but we should be careful to document their actual education before adding them to the first list. It would probably to be a good idea to change the paragraph introducing the second list to make it clear that these people have not been researched or verified as homeschoolers. By the way, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article - I think it is shaping up nicely!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Joan of Arc ==
I've been researching Joan of Arc's education, and I'm not sure it qualifies as homeschooling, at least as we think of homeschooling today. She was taught religion and domestic skills by her mother, as are most girls, then and now. She could not read or write, and I found nothing about her going to school or being taught any academic skills. So while (like most children of her time) she did not go to school, and while I have great respect for traditional women's skills and the way they have been passed from mother to daughter for centuries (regardless of whether the daughters also went to school or not), I don't think I would consider this to be "homeschooling" - it is, IMHO, "mothering" or "raising your daughter" - the kinds of things that most mothers do for their daughters. Below are a few quotes. Thoughts? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:''As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. Joan would later say, "As for spinning and sewing, I fear no woman in Rouen." And again, "It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."''<ref>A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio]</ref>

:''She never learned to read or write but was skilled in sewing and spinning...''<ref>New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm]</ref>

:''"It was from my mother that I learned the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Credo", and "to sew linen fabrics and to spin wool, and when it comes to spinning and sewing I fear no woman..."''<ref>Biography of Joan of Arc[http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html]</ref>

That is homeschooling. There is no requirement that homeschooling include a particular curriculum. Joan of Arc should be included. It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children. I'll revert the deletion of her name, even using your cites above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

::''It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children.'' I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean that most mothers don't teach religion at all? Or that most mothers of public-schooled children don't? I'm talking here of religious families. If those mothers (and of course fathers) don't teach their children religion, who does? I think that, in a devout home, most kids learn the Lord's Prayer etc. (or whatever prayers are appropriate for their religion) from their mother or their father - hearing their parents say them daily, during mealtime and bedtime prayers, etc. They also hear it from other family members and in church. It's woven into the fabric of their family life. I think that's even more the case in Joan of Arc's time. In a devout home, children learn these things even before they are of school age. In addition, girls throughout history learned spinning and sewing because that was their job in the family - the same way children today learn to load the dishwasher or to mow the lawn. Is it homeschooling? I can see both sides of it, and if you feel strongly that Joan of Arc should be included, then that's OK with me. But in terms of our list of famous homeschoolers, I don't think it makes sense to individually list all those people from earlier times who learned religion and basic life skills (and maybe even a trade) from their parents and never even had the opportunity to go to school. Perhaps it would be best to address it by writing a paragraph explaining that learning by your parents' side was the norm for the vast majority of people in those days - going to school was only for the elite. We could rename our list "Prominent people of the Modern Era who were educated at home" - well, "of the modern era" isn't great, but I'm sure we could think of something better - "Of the last 350 years" perhaps. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Joan of Arc was homeschooled. This isn't complex. No, most parents of public-schooled children do NOT teach their children the things that Joan of Arc learned at home. Were most children who went on to achievement homeschooled at the time of Joan of Arc? I don't know, but that fact does not affect whether Joan of Arc was homeschooled. She was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, by this logic you could include every human being prior to about 1700, and even most humans after 1700. In Joan of Arc's time, there were no public primary schools, therefore nearly everyone was educated by their parents. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 14:42, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone who failed to attend a [[public school]] was homeschooled. Ever heard of [[Plato's Academy]]? That was a few years before 1700.

:: The point of this entry is not to criticize [[public schools]] anyway. But if you want to insert a ''supported'' statement that [[public schools]] did not exist before 1700, please go ahead and do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Plato's academy was the equivalent of secondary and post secondary education, not primary education. Children learned to read and write from their parents, and so it follows that if their parents couldn't read or write, then the children almost certainly wouldn't be able to either.

:::Even into Joan of Arc's time, formal education was the province of the noble classes and what little group schooling existed was conducted by the church, not the state. Since most people were not members of a noble family, they would not have been educated in a group setting, but instead instructed by their parents. It wasn't until the advent of state sponsored public schooling that formal education became more widespread.

:::I realize that your goal is to present homeschooling as superior to public schooling, and you think that by presenting these towering giants of history as homeschooled that it helps your case, but the truth is that what you call homeschooling was the de facto method of learning for the vast majority of humanity the world over, and the handful of great individuals that arose from it are a measure of statistics, not of the superiority of the home-school. Certainly, if you're the child of a Bill Gates or a Richard Feynman you might get more at the foot of your parent than in an average public school, but if you're the son of Joe Ditchdigger or Jane Grocery Bagger then you're likely better off in a public school. A parent who is not well educated themselves is unlikely to be able to instruct their children to become better educated than they are. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:56, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== George Washington Carver ==
Yet again, when researching someone on the "Arguably Homeschooled" list, I've come up with little support for the argument. George Washington Carver, born a slave, didn't go to school until age 10, but I'm not sure I would call his education before this "homeschooling". More accurately, his education was delayed until he could attend school. The lack of schooling is '''not''' the same thing as homeschooling. What do you all think? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:26, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''Carver was born a slave near Diamond, Missouri, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Around age ten he left the farm where he was born and traveled through the Midwest doing odd jobs to support his education. Carver studied constantly and attended schools wherever possible, finally graduating from high school in Minneapolis, Kansas, in 1885. That same year he passed the entrance examination at Highland College in northeastern Kansas. But when school officials learned he was black, he was prevented from attending. In 1891 Carver was admitted to the Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts (now Iowa State University) in Ames. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1894, becoming the first black to graduate from the college. After graduation, Carver was appointed to the faculty as an assistant botanist. While teaching, he pursued his master’s degree, studying fungus diseases and classification of plants. In 1896 he received his master’s degree. That year, at the invitation of American educator Booker T. Washington, Carver became the director of agricultural research at Tuskegee Institute, where he remained for the rest of his life.''<ref>MSN Encarta Encyclopedia - George Washington Carver article[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574196/Carver_George_Washington.html]</ref>
:''He began his formal education at the age of twelve, which required him to leave the home of his adopted parents. Schools segregated by race at that time with no school available for black students near Carver's home. He moved to Newton County in southwest Missouri, where he worked as a farm hand and studied in a one-room schoolhouse. He went on to attend Minneapolis High School in Kansas. College entrance was a struggle, again because of racial barriers. At the age of thirty, Carver gained acceptance to Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, where he was the first black student. Carver had to study piano and art and the college did not offer science classes. Intent on a science career, he later transferred to Iowa Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) in 1891, where he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in 1894 and a Master of Science degree in bacterial botany and agriculture in 1897.'' <ref>George Washington Carver, By Mary Bellis[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa041897.htm]</ref>

==Leonardo da Vinci==
Here is another from the Arguably Homeschooled list for whom I've been able to find little evidence of homeschooling. Perhaps further searching will turn up more. Until then, I suggest we take da Vinci off the list. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''In Vinci Leonardo went to school. Vasari told that teachers of Leonardo da Vinci were despaired about all the questions and doubts of Leonardo. Leonardo learned at school to write, to read and to calculate. Also he was taught in geometry and Latin. Later Leonardo tried to improve his knowledge in Latin, because he thought that he didn't learn enough at school in Latin. Perhaps this is the reason why Leonardo did his notes in Italian. Leonardo lived in Vinci until 1466. With the age of 14 Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.''<ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

==Our "Arguably Homeschooled" list is proving to be very inaccurate.==
While I understand the logic of having the list in the article, I am finding so many people on the list to have educational backgrounds that I would not consider to be homeschooling that I think we need to reconsider. I suggest we move the list back to the talk page - the level of error is just too high to consider this list credible. Once researched, people who are shown to actually have been educated at home can be put on the "Prominent people who were educated at home" list, along with an explanation of their education and citations showing the facts. Thoughts? Opinions? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Some very basic fact checking shows that a number of the people on the list were clearly not homeschooled. Both were added by Mr Schlafly. Andy, are you just pulling these names from your nether regions, or did you bother to check if what you were posting was actually accurate? I notice you've removed some of my additions, who were certainly homeschooled since they lived in countries without formal education systems. Why was this done, Andy? Because they weren't Christian? I thought Non Christian Conservatives were welcome here... that's what your front page says. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 22:11, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Famous Dropouts vs. Famous Homeschoolers==
This reference <ref> Education Reform.net - List of Successful Dropouts [http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm]</ref>, currently in the Arguably Homeschooled section, is a list of dropouts, not a list of homeschoolers. While some overlap is possible, and a few people on the list are indeed arguably homeschooled, most are not. I do not think we should be equating dropouts with homeschoolers. I think we should keep the reference here on the talk page, to get ideas for adding to the list of Prominent People who were Educated at Home. I think it may be a good idea to remove it from the Arguably Homeschooled section. Thoughts? Input?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Henri Poincaré==
I am a bit confused about Poincare's education. While I have found several references stating that his mother tutored him, it's unclear whether this was just during his illness with diphtheria. It's unclear when he was ill, or how long he was ill. He entered school at age 8 and stayed there 11 years, going on to higher education after that. Most of the references I found seem to rely on (or copy) the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is not clear. Personally, I'm not comfortable calling him "homeschooled" without further clarification of his education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:''Henri was "... ambidextrous and was nearsighted; during his childhood he had poor muscular coordination and was seriously ill for a time with diphtheria. He received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school." In 1862 [when he would have been about 8] Henri entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honour). He spent eleven years at the Lycée and during this time he proved to be one of the top students in every topic he studied. Henri was described by his mathematics teacher as a "monster of mathematics" and he won first prizes in the concours général, a competition between the top pupils from all the Lycées across France. Poincaré entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. He was well ahead of all the other students in mathematics but, perhaps not surprisingly given his poor coordination, performed no better than average in physical exercise and in art. Music was another of his interests but, although he enjoyed listening to it, his attempts to learn the piano while he was at the École Polytechnique were not successful. Poincaré read widely, beginning with popular science writings and progressing to more advanced texts. His memory was remarkable and he retained much from all the texts he read but not in the manner of learning by rote, rather by linking the ideas he was assimilating particularly in a visual way. His ability to visualise what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see the symbols properly that his lecturers were writing on the blackboard. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines.''<ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

:: It is completely clear that he was homeschooled at least until age 8. The date of entry in the Lycee high school seems too early, and it seems unlikely he spent 11 years in high school. Regardless, he was homeschooled in learning the fundamentals of reading and math, and likely learned far more from his "gifted" mother.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== Citation needed ==
''Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled...''
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], much as I, as a homeschooling mom, would love to believe this, we simply cannot state it in the article without backing it up with a citation. Everything we post here must be true and verifiable. We must always cite and give credit to our sources. We must be careful not to post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry like this. These are Conservapedia's rules, not mine, and they are good ones. Let's show our students that we are serious about the rules by leading by example - we must stick to the rules if we expect others to do so. Thus, we need a credible citation for this statement. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

: That sentence introduces the paragraph and list of examples that support it, with citations. 4 out of the top 4 modern mathematicians were homeschooled. That's 100% of the smartest group of achievers. The person considered the greatest president (Abraham Lincoln) was homeschooled. That's 100% of the top. The greatest female military leader was homeschooled. That's 100%. It's not just one citation that backs up the sentence, it is many citations and examples.

: Hsmom, your repeated objections, like your objection above to the undisputed fact that Joan of Arc was homeschooled, are getting tiresome. Add some content to the entry rather than object to the facts, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Joan of Arc ==

Is it really accurate to say that Joan of arc was "homeschooled" in the sense of the word that this article is about. Not a lot of kids - and even fewer girls - of the lower classes got much schooling of ANY type during the Middle Ages. Most, if not all of children's education, what precious little of it there was for French peasants, would have been at home. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

: OK, so Joan of Arc and many others were homeschooled in her class and time period. That doesn't detract from the point: Joan of Arc was homeschooled and then became one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

: Your criticism has been raised by others in the past, all of whom view this entry as tit-for-tat, homeschooling versus alternatives. But that's not what this entry is about. This entry simply proves that homeschooling has been extraordinarily successful in its own right, regardless of alternatives. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Fair Inclusion ==

I've been trying to add William Bonney (Billy the Kid) and John Wesley Hardin, two famous American outlaws, and they keep getting deleted. I don't understand why. Both are certainly prominent, and both are homeschooled at least to the same extent as inclusions like Lincoln, Twain, and Joan of Arc. Obviously they don't paint a rosy picture of homeschooling, but doesn't blocking their entry present only one side of the argument (the pro-homeschooling side)?

: Provide some evidence for your claims, as required by our [[rules]]. Homeschooled means schooled at home, not running away from home. Obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

::Don't be a jerk, dude. This site lists "prominent" home-schooled individuals, not all of them. Also, this is not your site. Why do you think it should play by your rules?

:: Many of the people on this list were not obviously schooled at home. Twain is a clear example. Lincoln read at home but was not "schooled" by anyone, and people like the Roosevelts and Shaw studied with professional tutors, clearly not an analogy for the parent-lead homeschooling of today. Bonney's school experience is essentially a direct parallel of Twain's, and Hardin was taught by his father, just like Mozart. If your complaint is truly a source issue, I'm happy to go dig up a biography or two, but short of that I can see no reason for not including these two. For most of history people didn't have anything like modern access to public schools, which means that for most of history bad people got their education in pretty much the same way as people like Joan of Arc. Just trying to be fair here.

::: So you're saying that Lincoln schooled himself at home??? Could be ... but that's still homeschooled. Private tutors is also homeschooling, as many of us homeschoolers can attest. You seem to be saying that Hardin and Mozart were taught by their fathers. That's not homeschooling? Of course it is.

::: I'm open to unbiased improvements to the article. I don't know the details of Twain, for example. I do know that 5 out of the top 5 mathematicians post-Napoleon were homeschooled, and there are few if any errors on this list. If you can make unbiased improvements by adding information, please do. If you can't believe the list, then perhaps you want to open your mind a bit first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for rollback ==

Don't insert {{fact}} when the statement is supported the sentences that follow it. When in doubt, use this page to express your opinion rather than senseless inclusion of multiple {{fact}}--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, since you mention it, I was wondering why you removed the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> from the statement saying Ansel Adams is the best photographer of the twentieth century. It's certainly a very bold and opinionated statement (maybe someone is more a fan of [[Alfred Stieglitz]]) and I figured it needed backing up.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:22, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The next sentence supports the statement. Open your mind a bit, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, perhaps we can reach a compromise. Instead of adding a {{fact}}, why don't we just add the word 'arguably' to the sentence. That way, we're both happy. Eh?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: My friend, open your mind instead. The quote proves that Ansel Adams was homeschooled. All that is needed is a cite for the quote. The list of the others is also extremely well supported. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh ho, it seems we have found the root of our contention. You see, I'm not saying that Ansel Adams wasn't homeschooling. I don't doubt that he was. I'm just saying that the statement that he was the 20th century's 'finest artist' is not a fact (in the same way that "Bananas are the tastiest fruit" is not a fact), and should be changed to show it's opinion. It's semantics, I know, but that's how I roll, with mild [[OCD]].--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:55, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Oh how petty. Your own quote is wrong ("finest artist") and yet you're going to quibble about Conservapedia's statement here???? Everyone knows that Ansel Adams was the "the finest photographer of the 20th century." Nitpick something else, please. Or improve some entries here first and then return with more experience. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Alright, whatever. Anyway, I found the site the actual quote is from. I think I cited it right, but, you know, I'm inexperienced about the matter.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 01:18, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much. I apologize for overreacting a bit. Let's improve this fascinating entry further. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== What's with the [sic]? ==
Referring to the quote from the Williams College admissions officer... Is the [sic] there because of the possibly-incorrect dash in home-schoolers? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== C.S. Lewis ==

Assuming that homeschooling refers to the primary method of schooling that a child received, Lewis' homeschooling was only through age 10. Under those circumstances, would it be more appropriate to remove him from this list? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Being homeschooled through age 10 is significant, as that teaches the reading, math and thinking skills used the rest of one's life. The education Lewis received from his homeschooling was probably almost equivalent to a high school education today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Related article request ==

Please create the following ancillary articles and incorporate some of the following within the main article:

*[[Homeschooling Resources]]
*[[Christian Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Materials]]
*[[Online Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Programs]]
*[[Homeschooling Information]]
*[[Homeschooling Help]]
*[[Homeschooling Supplies]]
*[[Homeschooling Curriculums]]
*[[Classical Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Software]]
*[[Homeschooling and Math]]
*[[School Violence]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Leonardo da Vinci homeschooled? ==

Could somebody explain how Leonardo da Vinci was homeschooled? Here is his current entry in the list of "Prominent people who were educated at home":
{{cquote|Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.}}
Right now, this entry sticks out, so I'd be happy if somebody could clarify... --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

== Churchill ==

Debate whether Churchill was homeschooled here. Numerous internet discussions say he was, see, e.g., [http://forums.families.com/social-development-vs-homeschooling,t160]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 February 2008 (EST)
: Andy, your own reference contradicts what you are saying. The person in that discussion who claimed that Churchill was homeschooled ''later withdrew the claim'' and apologised for misunderstanding his source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: OK, well, that's a first for that observation. Thanks for pointing that out. But my cited source is just one of many, and it seems obvious that Churchill would have taught to read at home if he first attended school at age 7. Also, there are still unexplained gaps in the description of his formal schooling, with much to suggest he left an intolerable school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Churchill attended Brunswick House Preparatory School 1884-88; before that he had had attended the school run by a flagellant and sadist and described in 'My Early Life', and afterwards he was sent to Harrow. On Brunswick House: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FnM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=winston+churchill+preparatory+school&source=web&ots=FAKUcUFmFa&sig=FdVrP1JpErKuYWm1uKmyLug3G5w&hl=en

[[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:06, 29 February 2008 (EST)

: Your analysis lacks dates and ages, and seems obsessed with branding someone a "sadist". If the school was so sadistic then that only reinforces the likelihood of the claim that Churchill was not always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 29 February 2008 (EST)

My comment states clearly that he attended Brunswick House 1884-1888, and that he was born in 1874 is common knowledge, even to those of us suffering under the burden of having attended schools. The sadistic school, as I stated clearly, was attended before Brunswick House. It was a boarding school, so attendance was not optional. Do try and keep up. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

The following comes from the entry on Churchill in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I trust it answers any remaining questions you might have, and meets your threshold of sadistic behaviour. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:24, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''At eight he was sent to a boarding-school at Ascot where the headmaster took a pleasure in flogging the boys until their bottoms ran with blood. Winston performed well in some subjects but his reports often referred to his unruly behaviour. According to one authority, he was birched for stealing sugar from the pantry and retaliated by kicking the headmaster's straw hat to pieces (Churchill and Gilbert, 1.53). When he fell ill his parents transferred him to a school at Brighton where he was much happier but came bottom of the class for conduct.''

: This provides no detail on Churchill's schooling between ages 8 and 14, or prior to age 8. It reads like an entry in a gossip magazine as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:According to the biography at [http://712educators.about.com/cs/biographies/p/churchill.htm Educators.About.com] he attended private school from age 7. The article on his education from the [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=630 Winston Churchill center] states that his first school was St. George’s (which he mistakenly calls St. James’s in his autobiography) and where he was beaten. Following that he attended a school at Hove, near Brighton before entering Harrow at age 14. [[User:Spencer|Spencer]] 12:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: The Winston Churchill center does not say that the schooling was contiguous, and the claim that he was beaten suggests it may not have been. Moreover, if he was already 7 when he started, then he had probably been homeschooled to learn how to read. There are many claims on the internet, with limited details, that Churchill was homeschooled during some of these periods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''This provides no detail on Churchill's schooling between ages 8 and 14, or prior to age 8.''
The links that I have given between them show that from age 8 to 10 Churchill was at the school in Ascot; from 10 to 14 at Brunswick House in Hove (Brighton), and thereafter at Harrow. I am sorry that you did not like the quote. The ODNB is probably the most respected biographical dictionary in the English-speaking world - though clearly not as good as the internet - and the author of the entry on Churchill, Paul Addison, was Director of the Centre for Second World War Studies at the University of Edinburgh 1996-2005 and was also a Visiting Fellow of All Souls 1990-91.

''Moreover, if he was already 7 when he started, then he had probably been homeschooled to learn how to read''

Almost certainly, as biographies mention the benign neglect of Winston by his parents, he was given some instruction by a nurse or governess, as was common in upper class families until recent decades. I would add that I was able to read (to an extent) on starting school aged five. Can I claim to be a homeschoolee?

I will end by repeating: Churchill was not homeschooled in any rational sense of that term. To persist in stating that he was is damaging to the quality and reputation of Conservapedia, and makes a nonsense of any claims to encyclopaedic standards. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)
::The reference for Churchill's homeschooling amounts to the claim that he was privately taught by two women in Hove. As his family did not live there at that time he cannot have been homeschooled. [[User:GordonB|GordonB]] 17:43, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:::It was a school, albeit a less rigorous one than the Ascot establishment. And the CP entry on Churchill correctly says that he was privately schooled from the age of eight. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 17:44, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Are you complaining about the entry? It correctly describes the sisters' instruction as a less formal school setting. It was very different from the [[British]] prep schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:51, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I appreciate that you are trying to reach a solution on this; and I have seen the Brighton/Hove school described as a 'dame school', different in approach to the Ascot prep school. But a bit of 'pre-schooling' by a nurse or governess does not equate to home-schooling as the majority of c'pedians would (in my possibly inaccurate opinion) use the term. I was 'pre-schooled' in such a way by my parents: I could read and write a bit by the time I started school. But there is no way that I would ever describe myself as home-schooled, not for ideological reasons but because I simply don't see that as home schooling; and nor do I about Churchill. His formative educational years were spent at schools. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 17:57, 29 February 2008 (EST)
::::::No matter how informal the setting, if he wasn't being educated at home, or even in the vicinity, then there's no way he could be described as home-schooled. [[User:GordonB|GordonB]] 18:01, 29 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: [[Liberals]] are so literal, while criticizing others for being too literal (as in the [[Bible]]). "Homeschooling" is not limited literally to being schooled at home. Read our entry, please, and try to understand something that is slightly abstract.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Gough Whitlam

2008-03-19T10:21:14Z

PeterS:

{{PM
|dob=11 July
|yob=1916
|birthplace=Kew, Victoria
|dod=
|yod=
|wife=Margaret Whitlam
|party=Australian Labor Party
|succ={{Succession
|hdg=Prime Minister
|start-date=5 December
|start-year=1972
|end-date=11 November
|end-year=1975
|prev=William McMahon
|next=Malcolm Fraser
}}
}}
The '''Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam''' was [[Australian Labor Party]] [[Prime Minister]] of [[Australia]] between 1972 and 1975. In Australian political history, he is most famously associated with the events of 1975, when was dismissed from office in a controversial move by the [[Governor General]], Sir [[John Kerr]]<ref>National Archives of Australia</ref>, following an parliamentary impasse with the Senate (which was at the time controlled by the Opposition).

== Sources ==
* National Museum of Australia, [http://www.nma.gov.au/education/school_resources/websites_and_interactives/primeministers/gough_whitlam/ Gough Whitlam].
* National Archives of Australia, [http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp?pmId=21 Australia's Prime Ministers: Gough Whitlam]

==References==

<references/>
{{clear}}
{{Australian Prime Ministers}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Whitlam,Gough}}

Australian Labor Party

2008-03-19T10:19:07Z

PeterS:

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is [[Australia]]'s oldest continuous political party. The ALP was formed in 1891 and has used the name '''Labor''' over the more traditional Australian English usage of Labour since 1912. The ALP has a strong connection to the trade union movement.

During the 1950s communist scare in Australia, the ALP expelled many anti-communist [[Catholic]] members. The anti-communist Roman Catholic members became suspicious of communist influence in the trade union movement and groups were formed to take control of the unions. The '''groupers''' went on to form the anti-communist, Catholic aligned, '''Democratic Labor Party (DLP)'''. The DLP became largely irrelevant after the election of a Federal ALP majority under [[Gough Whitlam]] in 1972.

Famous ALP prime ministers have included the [[World War Two|war time]] [[John Curtin]] and 1970s [[Gough Whitlam]]. Although it has espoused socialist ideals in the past, the ALP has never introduced [[socialism]] to Australia. In recent decades, the ALP has remodelled itself in terms of its ideological vision.

The current national leader of the ALP is [[Kevin Rudd]]. The ALP is currently in power in every Australian state and territory and won the federal election of 24 November 2007.

[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Cricket (game)

2008-03-19T10:11:29Z

PeterS: /* Duckworth-Lewis scoring */

[[Image:Cricket_match.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Australia vs India, Sydney Cricket Ground, January 2004. Note how the pitch being used is merely one of many that can be in various stages of preparation.]]
'''Cricket''' is a bat and ball game played between two teams of eleven, normally in the local summer season. At international level, it exists primarily in two forms: Test cricket (played over five days) and one-day cricket (a shortened form of the game, with each team batting one innings of up to 50 overs). A recent innovation has been the "Twenty20" match (20 overs per side).

Cricket is also played at provincial and county levels, and traditional matches between village and [[public house]] teams are still played in summer on the [[village green]]s of [[England]].

==International Game==
The International Cricket Council (ICC) governs the game internationally, and recognises the national cricket administrations of each country.

On a global scale cricket is only surpassed by [[soccer]] in terms of popularity; it is the primary spectator sport in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Sri Lanka]] and the [[West Indies]] and of major importance in England, [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and [[South Africa]], and in many other places that were historically affected by British colonial influence. Cricket has a low profile in the United States, where baseball is the dominant bat and ball sport, but it is played in various regions. (As of March 2007, the ICC rejected the recognition of the [[USA Cricket Association]] until it adopted a viable constitution and rules, and created a workable administration.)

===Code of Laws===
Marylebone Cricket Club in [[London]], which operates The Lord's ground, was formed in 1787. A year later, it composed a Code of Laws that were adopted throughout the game. The MCC remains the custodian and arbiter of Laws relating to cricket around the world.

==The Pitch==

Cricket is played on a [[pitch]] or green, essentially a flat [[grass]] playing field, that is 22 yards (66 feet or 1 chain or 20.12 m) long and 10 feet wide.

The pitch is marked with various lines or 'creases', and is double-ended so that alternate 'overs' are played from both ends:
*One 'bowling crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch to mark the ends of the pitch. The three stumps in the set of stumps at that end of the pitch are along this crease. The bowling creases may be used to determine whether there is a 'no ball' because a fielder has encroached on the pitch or the wicket keeper has moved in front of the wicket before he is permitted to do so.
*One 'popping crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch in front of each of the two sets of stumps, 4 feet (1.22 m) in front of and parallel to the bowling crease. The popping crease is used in one test of whether the bowler has bowled a 'no ball'. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's front foot in the delivery stride (that is, the stride when he releases the ball) must be behind the popping crease (although the bowler's front foot does not have to be grounded).
*A return crease is drawn on each side of each set of the stumps, 4 feet 4 inches (1.32 m) either side of and parallel to the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. The return creases are primarily used to determine whether the bowler has bowled a no ball. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's back foot in the delivery stride must land within and not touching the return crease.

As imperfections in the playing surface may affect the behavior of the ball, the green is considered high maintenance as it has to be regularly rolled, watered and cut to ensure suitability for play. A [[groundskeeper]] is usually employed for this purpose.

An ideal pitch has fine grass growing in the turf to retain the consistency of the pitch and to prevent cracking, yet its grass has been cut so that the underlying ground is fully exposed.

An innovation in recent years has been the 'drop-in pitch', which is prepared and tended away from the field of play and then dropped into a specially constructed slot in the ground in place of normal turf. Final preparation is done after the pitch is in place.

Alternatives to the grass pitch are:
*Concrete topped with plastic 'grass' carpet, matting, or rubber (crushed or granulated, or a section of rubber conveyor belt);
*Concrete pitch (often with green pigment, or painted green);
*Clay surface, watered and rolled;
*A vulcanized rubber surface (introduced to England's famous Gloucester Cricket Ground in response to the floods of summer 2007);

==Equipment==
Cricket balls are made from [[cork]] with a [[leather]] cover, and are traditionally red (but white balls are used in some matches these days). Bats are [[willow]] treated with linseed oil.

The normal clothing for cricketers is white, or it may coloured for limited over matches:
*long trousers;
*long sleeves shirt (may be short sleeved for night matches);
*stud soled shoes; and
*cap or hat.

A normal cricketer's cap has a small beak at the front. Members of national teams are 'capped' (given their own team cap) when they are picked for their team. In recent times, it is normal to have cricketers optionally wearing a soft, canvas, broad-brimmed hat.

In recent years, team member's shirts often bear a number [[enbridery|embroidered]] below the national or team crest. This number is their 'cap' ranking, their number in the players who have been selected to play, since the national, state, or county first played (perhaps as early as the 1800s.) For example: the Australian team captain, [[Ricky Ponting]], wears number 366 in the national side and 123 for Australia's One Day International team<ref>[http://www.cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=playersmendetails&profileid=30 Ponting], Cricket Australia, accessed 16 February 2008</ref>.

The batsman uses pads (shin, arm and body guards), padded gloves, a 'box' (a protection for the groin), and protective headgear in response to the hazards of modern fast-bowling techniques.

The wicketkeeper is the only fielder allowed to wear gloves, which are made of soft leather tih rubber palms to help grip the ball.

==Officials==
Two umpires take to the field for major matches. The umpire at the bowler's end stands behind the stumps and watches the delivery stride of the bowler, the flight of the ball to adjudicate 'wide' or 'no ball' deliveries, and where it might strike the batsman or his bat.

The 'leg' umpire normally stands behind the batsman (on the 'leg' side of the field) and watches the flight of the ball and any deflection from the bat, in order to assist the other umpire in making a decision about a 'wide' or 'no ball' or a catch behind the stumps.

A 'third umpire' has been instituted for test and some state/county matches in recent years to decide close decisions for stumpings and run-outs, using video equipment and slow speed replays.

The captain of the fielding side is also considered an umpire for the specific circumstance where he believes a batsman has been unfairly been give 'out' by the other umpires. He may call the batsman back to continue his innings at bat. The captain is often fielding closer to the batsman than the umpires, and may have seen or heard the circumstances more clearly. This prerogative is rarely exercised, but shows high levels of sportsmanship as it effectively counters the wishes of other members of his team.

The scorers are considered to be officials. The field umpires use a system of hand and body gestures to indicate runs scored and other matters to the scorers, who are off the field.

In major games, such as international tests and national competitions, a referee is appointed by the convening body. This person does not go on the field of play, but watches from the stands. In hierarchy above the umpires, he can independently decide or be appealed to for decisions on matters of gamesmanship, etiquette, or cricket rules.

==Test (First Class) cricket - an overview==
Test cricket is played between the national teams of two countries. Most test series are 'best of' three or five matches. Typically, various limited over matches are also played as part of the 'season', including several 'warm-up' matches to assist the visiting team to become familiar with local conditions. As each major city in a country has a premier ground, a season normally involves matches in various cities.

A day's play consists of 90 overs of 6 balls (540 'legal' balls), usually divided into three 2 hour sessions with breaks for lunch and tea.

===The Ground===
The size of the field of play varies widely between cricket grounds, but the '''''pitch''''' in the centre is always 22 yards long and 10 feet wide. At either end of this pitch are two sets of '''''wickets''''', consisting of three wooden posts ('''''stumps''''') upon which rest two wooden '''''bails'''''. While most 'international' grounds are of generally similar size, most matches are now played with a '''''boundary rope''''' at a standard distance from the pitch around the edge of the field inside the white picket fence fence.

===Getting Out===
A batsman can be dismissed ('''''given out''''') in a number of different ways. These are:
* '''Bowled''' – the ball hits the stumps (wicket) and removes the bails direct from the bowler’s delivery, or after hitting only the bat or the batsman's hands (gloves) which are on the bat handle.
* '''Caught''' – the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by the fielding side before it touches the ground.
* '''LBW''' (leg before wicket) – the batsman fails to hit the ball and it strikes him in such a way that the umpire judges it would have gone on to hit the stumps. Note: This mode of dismissal depends on a number of other factors.
* '''Stumped''' – This is a particular case of 'run out' when the wicket keeper takes the ball immediately after delivery and breaks the stumps while the batsman has been attempting a shot while ahead of his crease.
* '''Run out''' – The fielding team get the ball to the wickets and 'breaks' the bails from the stumps while the batsman is outside the crease.
* '''Hit wicket''' - The batsman hits the stumps with his bat, or steps on the stumps while rearing back from a ball, breaking the bails.
* '''Handled the ball''' - The batsman touches the ball without the permission of the fielding side.
* '''Hit the ball twice''' - The batsman hits the ball twice without the intent of guarding his wicket. Tapping the ball from rolling onto your stumps is legal while hitting a throw away is an out.
* '''Obstructing the field''' - The batsman stops a fielder from fielding. This does not include unintentional bumping or running between the ball and a fielder.
* '''Timed out''' - If the batsman takes more than three minutes to get onto the pitch he is declared out. If the delay is even longer, the umpire may decide the batting team has forfeited.

===Win, Draw, or Tie===
In order to win, a team must dismiss the opposition twice (that is, take 20 wickets) and have scored more runs, within the five days. A match is a 'draw' if either team fails to dismiss the other twice, irrespective of how many runs may have been scored. A 'tie' is when the scores are level at the end of all sessions of play; no extra play is normally used to break a tie in a test match, but extra overs are played in some limited over matches.

===Batting and fielding===
The batting side must always have two batsmen operating in partnership, and each member of the batting team is allowed to bat once and only once in an innings. Thus, although they have eleven players, once ten wickets have fallen they are '''''all out''''' and their '''''innings''''' is over. The batting and fielding sides then swap roles and this cycle is repeated so that both teams have two opportunities to bat.

The game begins with the toss of a coin between the two captains, supervised by the field umpires. The winning captain then elects to bat or field.

Two batsmen (the '''''openers''''') take to the field accompanied by the entire fielding side and two umpires. The batsman who is to receive the first ball is '''''on strike''''' and takes guard in front of his wicket. His '''''non-striking''''' partner waits at the other end of the pitch.

The fielding side nominates a bowler, who has six balls (six balls = one '''''over''''') with which to dismiss the batsman. Bowlers normally bowl overarm, and must not straighten the elbow during the delivery of the ball. (Underarm delivery, similar to that used in [[Softball]], was at one time the only form of delivery. It remains in the cricket rules, but is now an oddity. A famous case of its use in an Australia-New Zealand test match resulted in derision for the Australian captain who asked a bowler to use this technique in order to stop the batting side from making a necessary run to win.)

Typically, bowlers take a run up before delivering a ball. A bowler may not bowl consecutive overs, so that typically two bowlers will bowl alternative overs until the captain decides to make a switch. In theory any player may bowl, but in practice no more than five or six of the eleven will usually participate. One other member of the fielding side acts as the wicket-keeper standing directly behind the wicket to catch any missed balls, or any balls where the batsman managed only a faint touch. The remaining members of the fielding side (who are specialist batsmen) spend the entire innings fielding.

====Batting theory====
Batsmen may be either left or right handed: The bat is the same for each.

The batsmen can run any number of runs at any time, even if the ball has not been struck.

The batsman aims to hit the ball in such a way that he and his fellow batsman can run safely to the other end and ground his bat, or a piece of his body (foot, hand, etc), within the popping crease before the fielding side can effect a run out. Hitting the ball well into the outfield causes the fielding side to chase the ball and throw it back to the wicket keeper or another player who 'backs up' at the bowling end of the pitch.

Long hits to poorly defended parts of the ground may allow the batsmen to run four, or the ball may get to the fence for four.

At certain times the ball is deemed to be 'dead' and the batsmen can wander safely on the pitch between the creases, for example to converse on tactics.

A good batsman in the top order (batting at positions 1-6) is normally capable of getting 20-50 runs and possibly 100 or many more. The 'lower order' batsmen in a good team, normally the specialist bowlers, may be able to 'slash' 20 runs on a good day.

====Bowling theory====
The bowler has two goals, which are not mutually exclusive:
*get the batsmen out, as they can no longer score in that innings; and
*prevent the batsman from scoring.

It may seem that the bowler should always aim at the batsman's legs, which are in front of the stumps. This is normally easily defended. Hence, bowlers normally bowl a range of balls away from the stumps hoping to lure the batsman into playing a rash or mis-timed shot that goes to a catch or allows the fielders to create a run out.

Bowlers come in three types: Quick, Medium, and Slow (or 'spin'). A top level team will normally have a bowling attack with two or three quick bowlers, one specialist slow (spin) bowler, and several general players capable of medium pace bowling.

'''Quick''' or fast bowlers may be delivering balls travelling at 136 to 150 kmh (85 to 95 mph). The ball is intended to either:
*hit the pitch on the seam (between the two halves of the leather) and thereby to bounce (un)predictably, or
*swing in the air towards or away from the bat.

'''Medium''' pace bowlers use similar tactics to fast bowlers but aim to create more diversity within the speed of their bowling so as to trick the batsman's timing of his swing at the ball.

'''Slow''' (or '''spin''') bowlers use either wrist or finger spinning techniques to get the ball to swing in the air, or bounce markedly off the pitch in either direction, and thereby snick the bat and be caught or bounce behind the batsman's guard into the stumps.

Normally, the quick bowlers will open the attack, and bowl for about two hours (or to the end of the first session.) The bowling will then be mixed up, with medium and slow, or quick-medium. At any time the captain may call for a change of bowling to 'mix up' the batsmen and seek to induce lax shots that can create an 'out'.

=====Over versus around=====
Whether the bowler is right or left handed, they have two options for approaching the pitch to bowl the ball.
*Over the wicket: The bowler's bowling arm is nearer the stumps. (A right handed bowler passes to the left of the stumps.)
*Around the wicket: The bowler typically crosses in front of the umpire who is standing back slightly, and the bowler's bowling arm is away from the stumps. (A right handed bowler crosses the mid-line of the wicket and passes the stumps to the left and behind him.)

Bowlers will often change delivery direction in order land the ball in a patch of rough or cracked turf. The irregular or uneven bounce that results is intended to reduce the scoring rate or induce desperate or intemperate shots by the batsman.

By changing his distance away from the stumps (while remaining within the delivery crease), the bowler can achieve a range of approach angles which, when combined with spin and delivery speed, offers the attacking side a broad range of options.

While it is possible for the bowler to change deliveries at each ball, typically a whole over will be bowled using one or the other of these possible delivery methods. In any case, before the delivery, the bowler must inform the umpire who will in turn inform the batsman.

=====Grip and concealment=====
The bowlers are under no obligation to inform the batsman about their particular technique for delivering the ball. Bowlers have certain grips on the ball that, if the batsman is able to pick up the shape of the fist or the splay of the fingers, will give a fraction of a second's advantage in determining what shot the batsman may use, or whether to take a step down or across the wicket.

Bowlers will often adopt strategies to prevent the batsman seeing the delivery hand, such as:
*holding their 'off' hand over the delivery hand during their strides to the crease;
*holding the ball in the 'off' hand until the last delivery stride;
*cocking the hand so that the bowler sees the back of the hand and not the fingers (and their particular grip on the ball);
*striding in with the delivery arm behind their body.

===Fielding positions===

The fielding team has eleven players on the field. One is the bowler, and one the wicket-keeper, leaving nine players to be distributed around the field in such a way as to maximise the fielding team's chances of preventing runs being scored and/or taking a wicket. Different situations call for different distributions, and part of the tactical and strategic skill of cricket (sometimes referred to as its chess-like nature) is to position the fielders to maximum advantage. Each position has a name, and some of the names (such as "silly mid off" and "short fine leg") can seem amusing to non-cricketers.<ref>[http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf Diagram of fielding positions from cricinfo.com]</ref>

===Scoring===

The batsman’s aim is to score '''''runs''''' whilst protecting his wicket. Generally speaking, in order to score a run, he must first hit the ball. He and his partner must then decide whether or not they can run to each other’s end of the pitch before the fielding side have time to break either wicket with the ball. They may run as many times as they are able per hit and the ''on strike'' batsman scores one run for his team each time they do so.

If the ball reaches the boundary rope, the batsman automatically scores four runs. If it clears the rope without first touching the ground, it scores six runs. (If a fielder is in contact with the ball when they touch the fence/rope then it is counted as a four or six depending on whether the ball has previously touched the ground or would have carried over the fence/rope.)

A 'no ball' may be called by an umpire according to various infractions by a bowler. The batting team gets one run counted to its score, and the ball is rebowled. A batsman can not be caught (out) on a no ball. Bowling infractions may include overstepping the popping crease, or delivering a ball that goes outside the return crease at the batsman's end or over the batsman's head (a wild delivery).

A 'bye' is a run scored when the ball is not hit. This may occur when the ball hits the batsman's apparel (clothes or protective equipment) and is deflected off into the field of play, or when a bowler delivers a ball that the wicket keeper fails to gather up. Batsmen may either 'run' or, if the ball goes to the boundary, a 'four' may be awarded even if the batsmen have run fewer.

The notation for scoring leads to a particular term, 'dot ball', as in the scoring sheet a ball that does not get a run is noted with a dot. Accordingly, an over with a single, dot, no ball, dot, three, dot, single, would be marked 1.nb.3.1 (six 'legal' deliveries) and the score has increased by 6 runs including one for the no ball.

====Example of Match Scoring====

The scoring of matches, and especially the way results are presented, can sometimes be confusing. As an example, let us imagine that, at the end of the first day’s play, Sri Lanka have scored 286 runs and have lost 5 wickets. This would be written as '''286-5'''.

Playing Australia, the match pans out as follows:

* Sri Lanka – 1st innings: 431
* Australia – 1st innings: 390

* Sri Lanka – 2nd innings: 360

Australia now need 402 runs to win. At the end of the 4th day, they find themselves 100-3 in their 2nd innings. Thus, they require 302 more runs to win on the final day with 7 wickets in hand.

If Australia are bowled out for a 2nd innings total of 300, then they would have fallen short by 102. Sri Lanka would be said to have '''won by 101 runs''' (if Australia had scored exactly 401, the game would have been a tie).

If, however, Australia reached their target only having lost another three wickets (402-6), they would be said to have '''won by 4 wickets'''.

If at the end of the fifth day's play Australia were 350-8, they would not yet have reached their target, and Sri Lanka would not yet have taken 10 wickets. In this instance both teams would have failed to win and the game would be declared a draw. This occurrence is not uncommon.

==Other aspects of the game==
===Grounds===
Grounds in different parts of one country, let along different parts of the world, play differently: Wickets in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are renowned for being 'hard'; English wickets are 'green' (have grass obvious in the playing surface); the ground in [[Perth, Western Australia]] has a daily sea breeze in the afternoon.

Then, there are oddities:
*The "Lord's" ground, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (established 1787) in London, has a slant of about 2.5m (8 feet) from one side of the ground to the other, so a shot made 'down the hill' typically goes further into the field than a shot made 'up the hill'.
*Grounds in the West Indies and India often have hundreds of people sitting in or hanging from trees in order to get an unobstructed view.
*"The Gabba" ground (at Woolloongabba in [[Brisbane, Queensland]]) has cantilevered spectator stands that protrude over the surrounding streets<ref>[http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/casestudies/sports17cbp.pdf Structural Steel Casebook, Issue 17, October 2000, pp4/6/8, OneSteel, accessed 5 January 2008</ref>.
*The cricket ground at [[Scarborough]] in [[Yorkshire]] is inside the walls of the town's medieval castle, and this leads to a number of "local" rules; for example, if a ball is caught by a spectator in medieval costume the batsman is given out if he is batting at the "town" end of the ground, but is awarded six runs of he is at the "sea" end.

===Day and Night===
Play is normally during the day, but an innovation since the 1970s has been the introduction of light towers at cricket grounds that allow play to continue through dusk and into the night.

===Sight Screen===
At each end of a major cricket ground is a 'sight screen', which is of a contrasting colour to the ball; white screen for a red 'day' ball; black screen for a white 'night' ball. The screen is moved so as to be behind the bowler from the perspective of the batsman. The ball thus stands out from the background and assists the batsman in making decisions about his shot.

==='Walking'===
High sportsmanship is shown when a batsman 'walks' from the field, conceding his wicket, when he knows that he has been 'out' by the rules of the game, but was not given out by the umpires. The fielding side may not even have 'appealed' to the umpire. For instance, this may occur when he feels the ball 'nick' his gloves or the bat and the ball is then caught by the wicket keeper.

Conversely, a batsman does not have to walk unless the umpire gives him 'out'. He may know that he was out by the rules of the game (for example, he felt a nick) but, after the fielding side has 'appealed' for the wicket (out), the umpire decides that it was 'not out'; and, the batsman is within his rights to 'stand his ground' based on the umpires decision.

===Winter===
Cricket grounds are of a size that allows them to be marked out during winter for playing football: [[soccer]], [[Rugby]], [[Rugby Union]], or [[Australian Rules]].

Many cricketers play baseball in winter, to keep up their hand-eye coordination.

===Women's Cricket===
A strong international competition exists for women playing cricket. This is based on national competitions at various levels (state/county, regional and local).

===Blind Cricket===
People with vision impairment, along with fully sighted people, can play [[Blind]] Cricket. (Sighted people are fitted with special spectacles that distort their vision.)

The ball is normally a white plastic ball of similar size to a cricket ball or softball, and has inside it a bell or metal pieces that make a noise as the ball moves.

The bowler calls out to the batsman, "Are you ready?", which allows the batsman to line up for the delivery. Similarly, the batsman's reply, or a call from the wicket keeper, allows the bowler to line up.

The batsman can be got 'out' in the same ways as for sighted cricket, except that catching is not permitted.

===Duckworth-Lewis scoring===
In the event that a limited over match is affected by rain or other stops to play, a system of score amendment is used developed by statisticians Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. This allows the umpires to calculate a new score target to win for the second side batting for any given amount of time remaining for normal play, less an allowance for the ratio of runs scored to wickets remaining, corrected for the number of minutes remaining until sunset. If a game may be rain affected, it is in the interests of the first side batting to score at a rapid and even rate, so that a revised target is difficult for the following side to achieve.

==Famous Cricketers==
===Batsmen===
*Dr [[W.G. Grace]] (1848-1915), English - "the best-known Englishman of his time"
*Sir [[Donald Bradman]] (1908-2001), Australian, "The Don" - "the greatest batsman of all time" (test match average of 99.94 runs; top score 334; 29 100s & 13 50s; 6,996 runs in 52 matches)
*[[Sachin Tendulkar]] (1973-), Indian - "the greatest One-Day International cricketer of all time" (Tests: ~12,000 @ 55 av; ODI: ~16,000 @ 44 av; First Class: ~20,000 @ 59 av; List A ODI: ~19,000 @ 45 av; still playing)
*Sir [[Gary Sobers]] (1936-), Barbadian - "the greatest all-rounder of all time". The first player to hit six sixes in one over of first-class cricket.
*Sir [[Vivian Richards|Viv Richards]] (1952-), Antigua, West Indies - "the greatest ODI batsman of all time" until Tendulkar (Tests: 8,540 @ 50.23 av; ODI: 6721 @ 47.00 av; First Class: 36,212 @ 49.40 av; List A ODI: 16,995 @ 41.96 av)

===Bowlers===
*[[Shane Warne]] (1969-), Australian - spin bowler, one of the five Wisden "cricketers of the century" (Tests: 40,704 balls for 708 wickets @ 25.41 balls/wicket; ODI: 10,642 for 293 @ 25.73 av; First Class: 74,830 for 1,319 @ 26.11 av; List A ODI: 16,419 for 473 @ 24.61 av; retired 2007)
*[[Muttiah Muralitharan]] (1972-), Sri Lankan - spin bowler, "the greatest Test match bowler ever" (still playing; as at December 2007 - Tests: 39,202 balls for 723 wickets @ 21.77 balls/wicket; ODI: 16,094 for 455 @ 22.68 av; First Class: 62,096 for 1,297 @ 18.93 av; List A ODI: 20,095 for 575 @ 22.97 av)
*[[Glenn McGrath]] (1970-), Australian - quick bowler, "holds the world record for the highest number of Test wickets by a fast bowler" (Retired from test cricket 2007; still playing demonstration matches; as at August 2007 - Tests: 29248 balls for 563 wickets @ 21.64 balls/wicket; ODI: 12970 for 381 @ 22.02 av; First Class: 41759 for 835 @ 20.85 av; List A ODI: 15808 for 463 @ 21.60 av)

===Dream Team===
According to [[Richie Benaud]], former Captain of the Australian Cricket Team and since then known internationally as "The Voice of Cricket" (commentator, both ball-by-ball and expert opinion):

''The Opening Batsmen:''

1. Sir John Berry 'Jack' Hobbs (1882-1963) (England) - The Greatest Opener, and the first English cricket player to be [[knight|knighted]] (1953)

2. [[Sunil Gavaskar]] (India) - The Most Difficult Batsman to Dismiss, and a Fine Opener

''Middle Order Batsmen:''

3. Sir Don Bradman (Australia) - The Best Batsman to Walk the Earth, and the first cricket player to be knighted (1949)

4. Sir Viv Richards (West Indies) - The Master Blaster

5. Sachin Tendulkar (India) - The Greatest ODI Batsman

''All-rounders:''

6. Sir Gary Sobers (West Indies) - The Greatest Allrounder Ever

7. [[Imran Khan]] Naizi (Pakistan) - the finest Cricketer/Captain to emerge from Pakistan; picked ahead of [[Kapil Dev]], [[Ian Botham]] & [[Richard Hadlee]]

''Wicket Keeper:''

8. [[Adam Gilchrist]] (Australia) - The Finest Wicketkeeper-batsman the world has seen

''Spinner:''

9. Shane Warne (Australia) - The Finest Leg spin Bowler of All time

''Fast Bowlers:''

10. [[Dennis Lillee]] (Australia) - A Great Australian Fast Bowler

11. [[Sydney Barnes]] (England) - A Fast-bowling Legend

==External links==
* [http://www.icc-cricket.com International Cricket Council]
* [http://www.lords.org The Lord's ground and the Marylebone Cricket Club]
* [http://www.cricket.com.au 'Cricket Australia']
* [http://stats.rleague.com/tc/players/player_index.html Player statistics (index)] - by country
* [http://www.championships.vbca.org.au/ Vision Australia 29th National 'Blind Cricket' Championships, 29 December 2007 - 11 January 2008]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cricket]]

Cricket (game)

2008-03-19T10:09:32Z

PeterS: /* Bowlers */

[[Image:Cricket_match.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Australia vs India, Sydney Cricket Ground, January 2004. Note how the pitch being used is merely one of many that can be in various stages of preparation.]]
'''Cricket''' is a bat and ball game played between two teams of eleven, normally in the local summer season. At international level, it exists primarily in two forms: Test cricket (played over five days) and one-day cricket (a shortened form of the game, with each team batting one innings of up to 50 overs). A recent innovation has been the "Twenty20" match (20 overs per side).

Cricket is also played at provincial and county levels, and traditional matches between village and [[public house]] teams are still played in summer on the [[village green]]s of [[England]].

==International Game==
The International Cricket Council (ICC) governs the game internationally, and recognises the national cricket administrations of each country.

On a global scale cricket is only surpassed by [[soccer]] in terms of popularity; it is the primary spectator sport in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Sri Lanka]] and the [[West Indies]] and of major importance in England, [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and [[South Africa]], and in many other places that were historically affected by British colonial influence. Cricket has a low profile in the United States, where baseball is the dominant bat and ball sport, but it is played in various regions. (As of March 2007, the ICC rejected the recognition of the [[USA Cricket Association]] until it adopted a viable constitution and rules, and created a workable administration.)

===Code of Laws===
Marylebone Cricket Club in [[London]], which operates The Lord's ground, was formed in 1787. A year later, it composed a Code of Laws that were adopted throughout the game. The MCC remains the custodian and arbiter of Laws relating to cricket around the world.

==The Pitch==

Cricket is played on a [[pitch]] or green, essentially a flat [[grass]] playing field, that is 22 yards (66 feet or 1 chain or 20.12 m) long and 10 feet wide.

The pitch is marked with various lines or 'creases', and is double-ended so that alternate 'overs' are played from both ends:
*One 'bowling crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch to mark the ends of the pitch. The three stumps in the set of stumps at that end of the pitch are along this crease. The bowling creases may be used to determine whether there is a 'no ball' because a fielder has encroached on the pitch or the wicket keeper has moved in front of the wicket before he is permitted to do so.
*One 'popping crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch in front of each of the two sets of stumps, 4 feet (1.22 m) in front of and parallel to the bowling crease. The popping crease is used in one test of whether the bowler has bowled a 'no ball'. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's front foot in the delivery stride (that is, the stride when he releases the ball) must be behind the popping crease (although the bowler's front foot does not have to be grounded).
*A return crease is drawn on each side of each set of the stumps, 4 feet 4 inches (1.32 m) either side of and parallel to the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. The return creases are primarily used to determine whether the bowler has bowled a no ball. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's back foot in the delivery stride must land within and not touching the return crease.

As imperfections in the playing surface may affect the behavior of the ball, the green is considered high maintenance as it has to be regularly rolled, watered and cut to ensure suitability for play. A [[groundskeeper]] is usually employed for this purpose.

An ideal pitch has fine grass growing in the turf to retain the consistency of the pitch and to prevent cracking, yet its grass has been cut so that the underlying ground is fully exposed.

An innovation in recent years has been the 'drop-in pitch', which is prepared and tended away from the field of play and then dropped into a specially constructed slot in the ground in place of normal turf. Final preparation is done after the pitch is in place.

Alternatives to the grass pitch are:
*Concrete topped with plastic 'grass' carpet, matting, or rubber (crushed or granulated, or a section of rubber conveyor belt);
*Concrete pitch (often with green pigment, or painted green);
*Clay surface, watered and rolled;
*A vulcanized rubber surface (introduced to England's famous Gloucester Cricket Ground in response to the floods of summer 2007);

==Equipment==
Cricket balls are made from [[cork]] with a [[leather]] cover, and are traditionally red (but white balls are used in some matches these days). Bats are [[willow]] treated with linseed oil.

The normal clothing for cricketers is white, or it may coloured for limited over matches:
*long trousers;
*long sleeves shirt (may be short sleeved for night matches);
*stud soled shoes; and
*cap or hat.

A normal cricketer's cap has a small beak at the front. Members of national teams are 'capped' (given their own team cap) when they are picked for their team. In recent times, it is normal to have cricketers optionally wearing a soft, canvas, broad-brimmed hat.

In recent years, team member's shirts often bear a number [[enbridery|embroidered]] below the national or team crest. This number is their 'cap' ranking, their number in the players who have been selected to play, since the national, state, or county first played (perhaps as early as the 1800s.) For example: the Australian team captain, [[Ricky Ponting]], wears number 366 in the national side and 123 for Australia's One Day International team<ref>[http://www.cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=playersmendetails&profileid=30 Ponting], Cricket Australia, accessed 16 February 2008</ref>.

The batsman uses pads (shin, arm and body guards), padded gloves, a 'box' (a protection for the groin), and protective headgear in response to the hazards of modern fast-bowling techniques.

The wicketkeeper is the only fielder allowed to wear gloves, which are made of soft leather tih rubber palms to help grip the ball.

==Officials==
Two umpires take to the field for major matches. The umpire at the bowler's end stands behind the stumps and watches the delivery stride of the bowler, the flight of the ball to adjudicate 'wide' or 'no ball' deliveries, and where it might strike the batsman or his bat.

The 'leg' umpire normally stands behind the batsman (on the 'leg' side of the field) and watches the flight of the ball and any deflection from the bat, in order to assist the other umpire in making a decision about a 'wide' or 'no ball' or a catch behind the stumps.

A 'third umpire' has been instituted for test and some state/county matches in recent years to decide close decisions for stumpings and run-outs, using video equipment and slow speed replays.

The captain of the fielding side is also considered an umpire for the specific circumstance where he believes a batsman has been unfairly been give 'out' by the other umpires. He may call the batsman back to continue his innings at bat. The captain is often fielding closer to the batsman than the umpires, and may have seen or heard the circumstances more clearly. This prerogative is rarely exercised, but shows high levels of sportsmanship as it effectively counters the wishes of other members of his team.

The scorers are considered to be officials. The field umpires use a system of hand and body gestures to indicate runs scored and other matters to the scorers, who are off the field.

In major games, such as international tests and national competitions, a referee is appointed by the convening body. This person does not go on the field of play, but watches from the stands. In hierarchy above the umpires, he can independently decide or be appealed to for decisions on matters of gamesmanship, etiquette, or cricket rules.

==Test (First Class) cricket - an overview==
Test cricket is played between the national teams of two countries. Most test series are 'best of' three or five matches. Typically, various limited over matches are also played as part of the 'season', including several 'warm-up' matches to assist the visiting team to become familiar with local conditions. As each major city in a country has a premier ground, a season normally involves matches in various cities.

A day's play consists of 90 overs of 6 balls (540 'legal' balls), usually divided into three 2 hour sessions with breaks for lunch and tea.

===The Ground===
The size of the field of play varies widely between cricket grounds, but the '''''pitch''''' in the centre is always 22 yards long and 10 feet wide. At either end of this pitch are two sets of '''''wickets''''', consisting of three wooden posts ('''''stumps''''') upon which rest two wooden '''''bails'''''. While most 'international' grounds are of generally similar size, most matches are now played with a '''''boundary rope''''' at a standard distance from the pitch around the edge of the field inside the white picket fence fence.

===Getting Out===
A batsman can be dismissed ('''''given out''''') in a number of different ways. These are:
* '''Bowled''' – the ball hits the stumps (wicket) and removes the bails direct from the bowler’s delivery, or after hitting only the bat or the batsman's hands (gloves) which are on the bat handle.
* '''Caught''' – the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by the fielding side before it touches the ground.
* '''LBW''' (leg before wicket) – the batsman fails to hit the ball and it strikes him in such a way that the umpire judges it would have gone on to hit the stumps. Note: This mode of dismissal depends on a number of other factors.
* '''Stumped''' – This is a particular case of 'run out' when the wicket keeper takes the ball immediately after delivery and breaks the stumps while the batsman has been attempting a shot while ahead of his crease.
* '''Run out''' – The fielding team get the ball to the wickets and 'breaks' the bails from the stumps while the batsman is outside the crease.
* '''Hit wicket''' - The batsman hits the stumps with his bat, or steps on the stumps while rearing back from a ball, breaking the bails.
* '''Handled the ball''' - The batsman touches the ball without the permission of the fielding side.
* '''Hit the ball twice''' - The batsman hits the ball twice without the intent of guarding his wicket. Tapping the ball from rolling onto your stumps is legal while hitting a throw away is an out.
* '''Obstructing the field''' - The batsman stops a fielder from fielding. This does not include unintentional bumping or running between the ball and a fielder.
* '''Timed out''' - If the batsman takes more than three minutes to get onto the pitch he is declared out. If the delay is even longer, the umpire may decide the batting team has forfeited.

===Win, Draw, or Tie===
In order to win, a team must dismiss the opposition twice (that is, take 20 wickets) and have scored more runs, within the five days. A match is a 'draw' if either team fails to dismiss the other twice, irrespective of how many runs may have been scored. A 'tie' is when the scores are level at the end of all sessions of play; no extra play is normally used to break a tie in a test match, but extra overs are played in some limited over matches.

===Batting and fielding===
The batting side must always have two batsmen operating in partnership, and each member of the batting team is allowed to bat once and only once in an innings. Thus, although they have eleven players, once ten wickets have fallen they are '''''all out''''' and their '''''innings''''' is over. The batting and fielding sides then swap roles and this cycle is repeated so that both teams have two opportunities to bat.

The game begins with the toss of a coin between the two captains, supervised by the field umpires. The winning captain then elects to bat or field.

Two batsmen (the '''''openers''''') take to the field accompanied by the entire fielding side and two umpires. The batsman who is to receive the first ball is '''''on strike''''' and takes guard in front of his wicket. His '''''non-striking''''' partner waits at the other end of the pitch.

The fielding side nominates a bowler, who has six balls (six balls = one '''''over''''') with which to dismiss the batsman. Bowlers normally bowl overarm, and must not straighten the elbow during the delivery of the ball. (Underarm delivery, similar to that used in [[Softball]], was at one time the only form of delivery. It remains in the cricket rules, but is now an oddity. A famous case of its use in an Australia-New Zealand test match resulted in derision for the Australian captain who asked a bowler to use this technique in order to stop the batting side from making a necessary run to win.)

Typically, bowlers take a run up before delivering a ball. A bowler may not bowl consecutive overs, so that typically two bowlers will bowl alternative overs until the captain decides to make a switch. In theory any player may bowl, but in practice no more than five or six of the eleven will usually participate. One other member of the fielding side acts as the wicket-keeper standing directly behind the wicket to catch any missed balls, or any balls where the batsman managed only a faint touch. The remaining members of the fielding side (who are specialist batsmen) spend the entire innings fielding.

====Batting theory====
Batsmen may be either left or right handed: The bat is the same for each.

The batsmen can run any number of runs at any time, even if the ball has not been struck.

The batsman aims to hit the ball in such a way that he and his fellow batsman can run safely to the other end and ground his bat, or a piece of his body (foot, hand, etc), within the popping crease before the fielding side can effect a run out. Hitting the ball well into the outfield causes the fielding side to chase the ball and throw it back to the wicket keeper or another player who 'backs up' at the bowling end of the pitch.

Long hits to poorly defended parts of the ground may allow the batsmen to run four, or the ball may get to the fence for four.

At certain times the ball is deemed to be 'dead' and the batsmen can wander safely on the pitch between the creases, for example to converse on tactics.

A good batsman in the top order (batting at positions 1-6) is normally capable of getting 20-50 runs and possibly 100 or many more. The 'lower order' batsmen in a good team, normally the specialist bowlers, may be able to 'slash' 20 runs on a good day.

====Bowling theory====
The bowler has two goals, which are not mutually exclusive:
*get the batsmen out, as they can no longer score in that innings; and
*prevent the batsman from scoring.

It may seem that the bowler should always aim at the batsman's legs, which are in front of the stumps. This is normally easily defended. Hence, bowlers normally bowl a range of balls away from the stumps hoping to lure the batsman into playing a rash or mis-timed shot that goes to a catch or allows the fielders to create a run out.

Bowlers come in three types: Quick, Medium, and Slow (or 'spin'). A top level team will normally have a bowling attack with two or three quick bowlers, one specialist slow (spin) bowler, and several general players capable of medium pace bowling.

'''Quick''' or fast bowlers may be delivering balls travelling at 136 to 150 kmh (85 to 95 mph). The ball is intended to either:
*hit the pitch on the seam (between the two halves of the leather) and thereby to bounce (un)predictably, or
*swing in the air towards or away from the bat.

'''Medium''' pace bowlers use similar tactics to fast bowlers but aim to create more diversity within the speed of their bowling so as to trick the batsman's timing of his swing at the ball.

'''Slow''' (or '''spin''') bowlers use either wrist or finger spinning techniques to get the ball to swing in the air, or bounce markedly off the pitch in either direction, and thereby snick the bat and be caught or bounce behind the batsman's guard into the stumps.

Normally, the quick bowlers will open the attack, and bowl for about two hours (or to the end of the first session.) The bowling will then be mixed up, with medium and slow, or quick-medium. At any time the captain may call for a change of bowling to 'mix up' the batsmen and seek to induce lax shots that can create an 'out'.

=====Over versus around=====
Whether the bowler is right or left handed, they have two options for approaching the pitch to bowl the ball.
*Over the wicket: The bowler's bowling arm is nearer the stumps. (A right handed bowler passes to the left of the stumps.)
*Around the wicket: The bowler typically crosses in front of the umpire who is standing back slightly, and the bowler's bowling arm is away from the stumps. (A right handed bowler crosses the mid-line of the wicket and passes the stumps to the left and behind him.)

Bowlers will often change delivery direction in order land the ball in a patch of rough or cracked turf. The irregular or uneven bounce that results is intended to reduce the scoring rate or induce desperate or intemperate shots by the batsman.

By changing his distance away from the stumps (while remaining within the delivery crease), the bowler can achieve a range of approach angles which, when combined with spin and delivery speed, offers the attacking side a broad range of options.

While it is possible for the bowler to change deliveries at each ball, typically a whole over will be bowled using one or the other of these possible delivery methods. In any case, before the delivery, the bowler must inform the umpire who will in turn inform the batsman.

=====Grip and concealment=====
The bowlers are under no obligation to inform the batsman about their particular technique for delivering the ball. Bowlers have certain grips on the ball that, if the batsman is able to pick up the shape of the fist or the splay of the fingers, will give a fraction of a second's advantage in determining what shot the batsman may use, or whether to take a step down or across the wicket.

Bowlers will often adopt strategies to prevent the batsman seeing the delivery hand, such as:
*holding their 'off' hand over the delivery hand during their strides to the crease;
*holding the ball in the 'off' hand until the last delivery stride;
*cocking the hand so that the bowler sees the back of the hand and not the fingers (and their particular grip on the ball);
*striding in with the delivery arm behind their body.

===Fielding positions===

The fielding team has eleven players on the field. One is the bowler, and one the wicket-keeper, leaving nine players to be distributed around the field in such a way as to maximise the fielding team's chances of preventing runs being scored and/or taking a wicket. Different situations call for different distributions, and part of the tactical and strategic skill of cricket (sometimes referred to as its chess-like nature) is to position the fielders to maximum advantage. Each position has a name, and some of the names (such as "silly mid off" and "short fine leg") can seem amusing to non-cricketers.<ref>[http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf Diagram of fielding positions from cricinfo.com]</ref>

===Scoring===

The batsman’s aim is to score '''''runs''''' whilst protecting his wicket. Generally speaking, in order to score a run, he must first hit the ball. He and his partner must then decide whether or not they can run to each other’s end of the pitch before the fielding side have time to break either wicket with the ball. They may run as many times as they are able per hit and the ''on strike'' batsman scores one run for his team each time they do so.

If the ball reaches the boundary rope, the batsman automatically scores four runs. If it clears the rope without first touching the ground, it scores six runs. (If a fielder is in contact with the ball when they touch the fence/rope then it is counted as a four or six depending on whether the ball has previously touched the ground or would have carried over the fence/rope.)

A 'no ball' may be called by an umpire according to various infractions by a bowler. The batting team gets one run counted to its score, and the ball is rebowled. A batsman can not be caught (out) on a no ball. Bowling infractions may include overstepping the popping crease, or delivering a ball that goes outside the return crease at the batsman's end or over the batsman's head (a wild delivery).

A 'bye' is a run scored when the ball is not hit. This may occur when the ball hits the batsman's apparel (clothes or protective equipment) and is deflected off into the field of play, or when a bowler delivers a ball that the wicket keeper fails to gather up. Batsmen may either 'run' or, if the ball goes to the boundary, a 'four' may be awarded even if the batsmen have run fewer.

The notation for scoring leads to a particular term, 'dot ball', as in the scoring sheet a ball that does not get a run is noted with a dot. Accordingly, an over with a single, dot, no ball, dot, three, dot, single, would be marked 1.nb.3.1 (six 'legal' deliveries) and the score has increased by 6 runs including one for the no ball.

====Example of Match Scoring====

The scoring of matches, and especially the way results are presented, can sometimes be confusing. As an example, let us imagine that, at the end of the first day’s play, Sri Lanka have scored 286 runs and have lost 5 wickets. This would be written as '''286-5'''.

Playing Australia, the match pans out as follows:

* Sri Lanka – 1st innings: 431
* Australia – 1st innings: 390

* Sri Lanka – 2nd innings: 360

Australia now need 402 runs to win. At the end of the 4th day, they find themselves 100-3 in their 2nd innings. Thus, they require 302 more runs to win on the final day with 7 wickets in hand.

If Australia are bowled out for a 2nd innings total of 300, then they would have fallen short by 102. Sri Lanka would be said to have '''won by 101 runs''' (if Australia had scored exactly 401, the game would have been a tie).

If, however, Australia reached their target only having lost another three wickets (402-6), they would be said to have '''won by 4 wickets'''.

If at the end of the fifth day's play Australia were 350-8, they would not yet have reached their target, and Sri Lanka would not yet have taken 10 wickets. In this instance both teams would have failed to win and the game would be declared a draw. This occurrence is not uncommon.

==Other aspects of the game==
===Grounds===
Grounds in different parts of one country, let along different parts of the world, play differently: Wickets in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are renowned for being 'hard'; English wickets are 'green' (have grass obvious in the playing surface); the ground in [[Perth, Western Australia]] has a daily sea breeze in the afternoon.

Then, there are oddities:
*The "Lord's" ground, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (established 1787) in London, has a slant of about 2.5m (8 feet) from one side of the ground to the other, so a shot made 'down the hill' typically goes further into the field than a shot made 'up the hill'.
*Grounds in the West Indies and India often have hundreds of people sitting in or hanging from trees in order to get an unobstructed view.
*"The Gabba" ground (at Woolloongabba in [[Brisbane, Queensland]]) has cantilevered spectator stands that protrude over the surrounding streets<ref>[http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/casestudies/sports17cbp.pdf Structural Steel Casebook, Issue 17, October 2000, pp4/6/8, OneSteel, accessed 5 January 2008</ref>.
*The cricket ground at [[Scarborough]] in [[Yorkshire]] is inside the walls of the town's medieval castle, and this leads to a number of "local" rules; for example, if a ball is caught by a spectator in medieval costume the batsman is given out if he is batting at the "town" end of the ground, but is awarded six runs of he is at the "sea" end.

===Day and Night===
Play is normally during the day, but an innovation since the 1970s has been the introduction of light towers at cricket grounds that allow play to continue through dusk and into the night.

===Sight Screen===
At each end of a major cricket ground is a 'sight screen', which is of a contrasting colour to the ball; white screen for a red 'day' ball; black screen for a white 'night' ball. The screen is moved so as to be behind the bowler from the perspective of the batsman. The ball thus stands out from the background and assists the batsman in making decisions about his shot.

==='Walking'===
High sportsmanship is shown when a batsman 'walks' from the field, conceding his wicket, when he knows that he has been 'out' by the rules of the game, but was not given out by the umpires. The fielding side may not even have 'appealed' to the umpire. For instance, this may occur when he feels the ball 'nick' his gloves or the bat and the ball is then caught by the wicket keeper.

Conversely, a batsman does not have to walk unless the umpire gives him 'out'. He may know that he was out by the rules of the game (for example, he felt a nick) but, after the fielding side has 'appealed' for the wicket (out), the umpire decides that it was 'not out'; and, the batsman is within his rights to 'stand his ground' based on the umpires decision.

===Winter===
Cricket grounds are of a size that allows them to be marked out during winter for playing football: [[soccer]], [[Rugby]], [[Rugby Union]], or [[Australian Rules]].

Many cricketers play baseball in winter, to keep up their hand-eye coordination.

===Women's Cricket===
A strong international competition exists for women playing cricket. This is based on national competitions at various levels (state/county, regional and local).

===Blind Cricket===
People with vision impairment, along with fully sighted people, can play [[Blind]] Cricket. (Sighted people are fitted with special spectacles that distort their vision.)

The ball is normally a white plastic ball of similar size to a cricket ball or softball, and has inside it a bell or metal pieces that make a noise as the ball moves.

The bowler calls out to the batsman, "Are you ready?", which allows the batsman to line up for the delivery. Similarly, the batsman's reply, or a call from the wicket keeper, allows the bowler to line up.

The batsman can be got 'out' in the same ways as for sighted cricket, except that catching is not permitted.

===Duckworth-Lewis scoring===
In the event that a limited over match is affected by rain or other stops to play, a system of score amendment is used developed by Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis. This allows the umpires to calculate a new score target to win for the second side batting for any given amount of time remaining for normal play, less an allowance for the ratio of runs scored to wickets remaining, corrected for the number of minutes remaining until sunset. If a game may be rain affected, it is in the interests of the first side batting to score at a rapid and even rate, so that a revised target is difficult for the following side to achieve.

==Famous Cricketers==
===Batsmen===
*Dr [[W.G. Grace]] (1848-1915), English - "the best-known Englishman of his time"
*Sir [[Donald Bradman]] (1908-2001), Australian, "The Don" - "the greatest batsman of all time" (test match average of 99.94 runs; top score 334; 29 100s & 13 50s; 6,996 runs in 52 matches)
*[[Sachin Tendulkar]] (1973-), Indian - "the greatest One-Day International cricketer of all time" (Tests: ~12,000 @ 55 av; ODI: ~16,000 @ 44 av; First Class: ~20,000 @ 59 av; List A ODI: ~19,000 @ 45 av; still playing)
*Sir [[Gary Sobers]] (1936-), Barbadian - "the greatest all-rounder of all time". The first player to hit six sixes in one over of first-class cricket.
*Sir [[Vivian Richards|Viv Richards]] (1952-), Antigua, West Indies - "the greatest ODI batsman of all time" until Tendulkar (Tests: 8,540 @ 50.23 av; ODI: 6721 @ 47.00 av; First Class: 36,212 @ 49.40 av; List A ODI: 16,995 @ 41.96 av)

===Bowlers===
*[[Shane Warne]] (1969-), Australian - spin bowler, one of the five Wisden "cricketers of the century" (Tests: 40,704 balls for 708 wickets @ 25.41 balls/wicket; ODI: 10,642 for 293 @ 25.73 av; First Class: 74,830 for 1,319 @ 26.11 av; List A ODI: 16,419 for 473 @ 24.61 av; retired 2007)
*[[Muttiah Muralitharan]] (1972-), Sri Lankan - spin bowler, "the greatest Test match bowler ever" (still playing; as at December 2007 - Tests: 39,202 balls for 723 wickets @ 21.77 balls/wicket; ODI: 16,094 for 455 @ 22.68 av; First Class: 62,096 for 1,297 @ 18.93 av; List A ODI: 20,095 for 575 @ 22.97 av)
*[[Glenn McGrath]] (1970-), Australian - quick bowler, "holds the world record for the highest number of Test wickets by a fast bowler" (Retired from test cricket 2007; still playing demonstration matches; as at August 2007 - Tests: 29248 balls for 563 wickets @ 21.64 balls/wicket; ODI: 12970 for 381 @ 22.02 av; First Class: 41759 for 835 @ 20.85 av; List A ODI: 15808 for 463 @ 21.60 av)

===Dream Team===
According to [[Richie Benaud]], former Captain of the Australian Cricket Team and since then known internationally as "The Voice of Cricket" (commentator, both ball-by-ball and expert opinion):

''The Opening Batsmen:''

1. Sir John Berry 'Jack' Hobbs (1882-1963) (England) - The Greatest Opener, and the first English cricket player to be [[knight|knighted]] (1953)

2. [[Sunil Gavaskar]] (India) - The Most Difficult Batsman to Dismiss, and a Fine Opener

''Middle Order Batsmen:''

3. Sir Don Bradman (Australia) - The Best Batsman to Walk the Earth, and the first cricket player to be knighted (1949)

4. Sir Viv Richards (West Indies) - The Master Blaster

5. Sachin Tendulkar (India) - The Greatest ODI Batsman

''All-rounders:''

6. Sir Gary Sobers (West Indies) - The Greatest Allrounder Ever

7. [[Imran Khan]] Naizi (Pakistan) - the finest Cricketer/Captain to emerge from Pakistan; picked ahead of [[Kapil Dev]], [[Ian Botham]] & [[Richard Hadlee]]

''Wicket Keeper:''

8. [[Adam Gilchrist]] (Australia) - The Finest Wicketkeeper-batsman the world has seen

''Spinner:''

9. Shane Warne (Australia) - The Finest Leg spin Bowler of All time

''Fast Bowlers:''

10. [[Dennis Lillee]] (Australia) - A Great Australian Fast Bowler

11. [[Sydney Barnes]] (England) - A Fast-bowling Legend

==External links==
* [http://www.icc-cricket.com International Cricket Council]
* [http://www.lords.org The Lord's ground and the Marylebone Cricket Club]
* [http://www.cricket.com.au 'Cricket Australia']
* [http://stats.rleague.com/tc/players/player_index.html Player statistics (index)] - by country
* [http://www.championships.vbca.org.au/ Vision Australia 29th National 'Blind Cricket' Championships, 29 December 2007 - 11 January 2008]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cricket]]

Homeschooling

2008-03-19T09:37:11Z

PeterS: Removed Dickens: see talk page

[[Image:Homeschool.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A young homeschool student]]
'''Homeschooling''' is a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the [[United States]], including many contest winners, whereby the students receive education outside of traditional [[school]]s. Reasons for '''homeschooling''' include:

* a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities
* freedom from [[liberal]] and/or [[atheistic]] bias and culture in schools
* a more flexible daily schedule
* avoiding conflicts with [[public school]] officials
* more time by parents with their children in formative years
* avoiding objectionable [[vaccines]], mental health screening, and questionnaires
* developing the discipline to work at home as an adult, which can be invaluable
* less likely to pick up life-long addictions from peers, like drugs, cigarettes, pornography or alcohol
* the time and availability to learn a trade or profession as an apprentice, as was historically done

Homeschooling [[parent]]s oversee their children's education, usually providing some of the instruction themselves. In addition, they can mix-and-match other instructional approaches, including:
* attending a weekly course provided in many communities by the homeschooling community
* using a correspondence school (or the modern video- or [[computer]]-based equivalent)
* taking classes at local museums or nature centers
* joining with other [[family|families]] to share teaching responsibilities in a co-op
* encouraging the student to self-instruct using library books, traditional textbooks or workbooks, knowledgeable mentor's and/or hands-on experiences
* hiring a tutor for certain difficult topics, like [[physics]]

Some homeschoolers also include local "after school" enrichment programs like scouts, 4-H, sports, [[music]] lessons, karate or dance classes, public library programs, and summer camps as part of their educational program. In 2003, "76 percent of homeschool graduates surveyed between the ages of 18 to 24 voted within the last five years, compared to only 29 percent of the corresponding U.S. population."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35226</ref>

==Homeschooling Statistics==

In the [[United States]], as of 2003, the government estimated that 1.1 million students - about 2.2% of children in grades K-12 - were homeschooled. <ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/estimated.asp] Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006</ref> A 2005 estimate from the [[National Home Education Research Institute]] places the number at 1.9 million to 2.4 million while the [[National Center for Education Statistics]] estimates that the number of students being homeschooled increased 29% from 1999 to 2003.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg 1</ref>Families who homeschool do so for a number of reasons. A 2001 study by the [[US Census Bureau]] found that the single largest reason that parents homeschool is that they feel they can give their children a better education at home. This accounted for 50% of the homeschool families; [[religion|religious]] reasons came in second at 33%.<ref>Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics, by Kurt J. Bauman, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2001, Working Paper Series No. 53 [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html]</ref> Other frequently mentioned reasons include dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools, the ability to provide religious or moral instruction along with academics, the ability to control what the child is being taught, flexibility in meeting the needs of a child with special needs (such as a physical or mental health problem, a temporary illness, or giftedness), flexibility in scheduling family life, and concern about safety, drugs, and peer pressure at other schools. <ref>Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp] </ref>

Admissions departments at major [[college]]s are now familiar and comfortable with homeschooling, according to a 2004 Boston Globe article. The article quotes a [[Liberal Arts college|Williams College]] admission officer as saying: <blockquote>"We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives." It notes that acceptance rate of homeschoolers at Williams is 20 percent,<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked?mode=PF Schoolhouse rocked] "home schooling has gone main stream, especially in Massachusetts. It's estimated that as many as 20,000 children here have abandoned test-crazy public schools and high-priced private schools for the comfort of the living room couch. But most surprising of all is that Harvard, BU, Brown, and other colleges are welcoming home-schoolers like all other students." Source for Williams College admission officer's quote, 20% figure.</ref> virtually identical to its overall acceptance rate.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm College acceptance rates]: Williams, 19.2%. U. S. News and World Report</ref></blockquote>

In the [[United States]], some states allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities at their local public schools. 20 states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming) in one way or another expressly allow equal access. In most other states, participation is worked out on a case-by-case basis. <ref>HSLDA: State Laws Concerning Participation of Homeschool Students in Public School Activities [http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000048.asp]</ref> In addition, some states, such as Alabama, are considering equal access legislation. <ref>HSLDA: Alabama - Legislation for Participation in Public School Activities[http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/al/200705010.asp]</ref>

In many states, school athletic associations dominated by public schools exclude homeschoolers from participation in athletics, even though they allow students at different charter schools to participate.<ref>[[New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association]]</ref>

==History==

In the United States, opting out of [[public school]]s is not new. When [[Thomas Edison]]'s public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home.

Education at public school year-round from about ages 6 to 18 only became common in the 20th century due to compulsory education laws. The first [[law]] requiring attendance at public school passed in [[Massachusetts]] in 1852; the second such law passed in [[Washington D.C.]] in 1864; and most states did not pass mandatory schooling laws until between 1870 and 1917.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/CompulsoryEd.htm Compulsory Education], National Conference of State Legislatures: "More than 150 years have passed since Horace Mann helped Massachusetts establish a statewide system of education that eventually led to the requirement that all children attend public school. In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory school attendance laws, and by 1918, all states required children to receive an education."</ref><ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref>

But even under compulsory education laws in the late 1800s, the school year was only twelve to twenty weeks long. Very few stayed in school from ages 6 to 18. For example, by 1900, only 6% of Americans had graduated from a formal high school. Moreover, these students did not learn basic skills like reading in school; they learned them at home.<ref>''id.''</ref>

Baltimore's Calvert School began selling the school's curriculum to parents in 1905. Within five years, more than 300 children were enrolled in Calvert's correspondence courses. Over the next hundred years, Calvert served over 500,000 children from a wide variety of families nation-wide and around the world, including missionary families and those in remote locations. <ref>Calvert School Homeschooling: A Century of Tradition and Innovation [http://www.calvertschool.org/education-services/home-school-history/]</ref>

Homeschooling began in the 1960s from very different ideological sources. [[Seventh-Day Adventists]] Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore pioneered homeschooling as a result of their research into education and their concern about the harmful effects of schooling on students, particularly boys, between ages 5 and 15.<ref>http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=2</ref> On the other side of the political spectrum, John Holt wrote a book critical of schooling in 1964, entitled ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> More generally, millions of Americans were alarmed at the 1962 [[U. S. Supreme Court]] ruling which banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools, and many of those parents began to look for alternatives.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first [[New York Times]] story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the [[Westchester]] County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling.<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only [[Christian fundamentalists]] any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."



== Prominent people who were educated at home ==


Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled, including nearly every great [[mathematician]]. Here is a growing list of homeschooled achievers:

*[[Ansel Adams]], (1902-1984), the finest landscape photographer of the twentieth century. "At twelve, unable to stand the confinement and tedium of the classroom, he utterly disrupted his lessons with wild laughter and undisguised contempt for the inept ramblings of his teachers. His father decided that Ansel’s formal education was best ended. From that point forward, the boy was home-schooled in Greek, the English classics, algebra, and the glories of the ocean, inlets, and rocky beaches that surrounded their home very near San Francisco."<ref>http://wy.essortment.com/anseladamsbio_rjrq.htm</ref>

*[[John Adams]] (1735-1826), U.S. President, learned to read at home, and was then taught in the kitchen by a neighbor with a handful of children. He matriculated to Harvard College at age 15.{{fact}}

*[[Louisa May Alcott]] (1832-1888), the author of ''Little Women'' and other great works, was taught by her father.{{fact}}

*[[Clara Barton]] (1821-1912), pioneering nurse during the [[Civil War]], founder of the [[American Association of the International Red Cross]]. Barton was educated at home, and at 15 started teaching school. She later attended the Liberal Institute in Clinton, New York. <ref>White House Dream Team: Clara Barton[http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/dreamteam/clarabarton.html]</ref> <ref>Clara Harlowe Barton, Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/bartonbio.htm]</ref>

*[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]]

*[[Mary Breckinridge]] (1881-1965), pioneering American midwife and founder of Kentucky's Frontier Nursing Service. Mary's father was a diplomat, and she was educated in America and abroad by private tutors.<ref>Frontier Nursing Service[http://www.frontiernursing.org/History/MaryBreckinridge.shtm] </ref>

*[[Robert Burns]] (1759-1796) [[Scotland]]'s national poet.

*[[Andrew Carnegie]] (1835-1919), the brilliant American businessman and philanthropist of the late 1800s, his father was a poor weaver and Andrew dropped out of elementary school<ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref> and had only five years of formal schooling.<ref>http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/carnegiemedal/background.html</ref>

*[[Augustin-Louis Cauchy]] (1789-1857), one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, was taught by his father during an 11-year retreat to the country to escape the [[French Revolution]]. His father "wrote his own textbooks, several of them in the fluent verse of which he was master. Verse, he believed, made grammar, history and, above all, morals less repulsive to the juvenile mind."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 273 (1937).</ref><ref>http://james.fabpedigree.com/mathmen.htm#Cauchy</ref>

*[[Pafnuty Chebyshev]] (1821-1894), one of the greatest Russian [[mathematician]]s, was homeschooled until college.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Chebyshev.html</ref>

*[[Agatha Christie]] (1890-1976), best-selling English mystery writer. Christie was educated at home by her mother, who encouraged her to write from a very early age. At sixteen she was sent to finishing school in Paris. <ref>PBS Mystery Series "Miss Marple" site: Biography of Agatha Christie[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/mystery/marple/christie.html]</ref>

*[[Winston Churchill]] (1874–1965), [[British]] statesman. He was homeschooled in learning how to read, write and do math, and was not enrolled in a school until several months into the school year at the age of seven. After only about two years at that school, he was abruptly pulled out and then spent several years under the instruction of two maiden sisters in a less formal school setting.<ref>William Manchester, "The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, VISIONS OF GLORY 1874-1932 (Little Brown & Co.).</ref>

*[[Thomas Edison]] (1804–1896), the most prolific inventor in the history of the world and the holder of 1093 patents.<ref>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm</ref>

*[[Paul Erdos]] (1913–1996), the most prolific [[mathematician]] of the 20th century, was homeschooled.<ref>http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Erdos.html</ref>

*[[Pierre de Fermat]] (1601?-1665), the greatest [[mathematician]] of the 17th century and the founder of the modern theory of numbers, was homeschooled.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 57 (1937)</ref>

*[[Benjamin Franklin]] (1706-1790), a leading [[Founding Father]] and prolific inventor and statesman, only attended part-time school from ages 8 to 10.{{fact}}

*[[Evariste Galois]] (1811–1832), among the brightest mathematicians ever and the founder of Galois groups and fields and Galois theory. "Until the age of twelve Galois had no teacher but his mother, Adelaide-Marie Demante."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 362 (1937). Galois' life was tragically cut short at age 20 in a [[duel]], and his work was published posthumously.[scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Galois.html]</ref>

*[[William Hamilton]] (1805-1865), the greatest Irish mathematician and biggest contributor since [[Isaac Newton]] of [[mathematics]] to [[physics]]. He was taught by his uncle, the Reverend James Hamilton.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 340-41 (1937).</ref>

*Zac, Taylor, and Isaac Hanson, of the band [[Hanson]]. Educated at home by their mother, and later by a tutor. <ref>Hanson: The All American Boys[http://www.drdrew.com/DrewLive/article.asp?id=1112]</ref><ref>Hangin With Presents
Hanson[http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/hanson.html]</ref>

*[[Julia Ward Howe]] (1819–1910), abolitionist, writer, and women's rights activist. Julia was educated by tutors at home and in girls' schools until age 16. <ref>Open Connections Program, Women Working 1800-1930, Harvard University Library: Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910)[http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/people_howe.html]</ref>

*[[Carl Jacobi]] (1804-1851), a prominent and prolific German mathematician, was homeschooled until the age of 12 and was taught the classics and [[mathematics]] by a maternal uncle.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 327 (1937).</ref>

*[[Joan of Arc]] (1412-1431), one of the greatest military leaders ever.<ref>"As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. ... It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc][http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html Biography of Joan of Arc]</ref>

*[[C.S. Lewis]] (1898-1963), the author of the ''Chronicles of Narnia'' and other famous works, was homeschooled by his mother and a governess until age 10, and later sent to be taught by a tutor to prepare him for [[Oxford]].<ref>'''Lewis, C. S.''', ''Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life'', London: Harvest Books (1955) ISBN 0-1568-7011-8</ref>

*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809-1865), American president. "Though his [formal] education was limited to a few months in a 1-teacher school, Lincoln avidly read books such as the Bible, ''Pilgrim's Progress'' and Weemss ''Life of Washington''."<ref>http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnbio.htm</ref>

*Countess Augusta [[Ada Lovelace]] (1815-1852), a visionary programmer and namesake of the [[ADA]] programming language, was homeschooled by governesses and tutors hired by her mother.{{fact}}

*[[Benoit Mandelbrot]], Harvard mathematician considered the founder of fractal geometry, received no extended formal schooling and was homeschooled by his uncle beginning at the age of 12.<ref>http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fractal.html</ref>

*[[Yehudi Menuhin]] (1916-1999), noted violinist and conductor, never attended school, and was taught Mathematics, History and Hebrew by his father, and French, German, Italian and Spanish by his mother.<ref>Slater, Elinor and Slater, Robert ''Great Jewish Men'' (Jonathon David Publishers; 1996) ISBN 0-8246-0381-8</ref>

*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791), German composer. "He was educated by his father, Leopold Mozart, a violinist of high repute in the service of the archbishop of Salzburg."<ref>[http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]</ref>

* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the best-selling [[Inheritance Trilogy]] ([[Eragon]], [[Eldest]], and a third book yet unreleased). He was homeschooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

* [[Blaise Pascal]] (1623-1662), one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of all time, was entirely homeschooled by his father.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 74-76 (1937).</ref>

* [[George Patton]] (1885–1945), one of America's greatest generals. He was homeschooled until age 11 based on his "father's theory of education" that "youthful mind should be led along a path that parallels the development of the mind of the race" by being read to by elders.<ref>http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap01.html The Patton Society ("The Early Years")]</ref><ref>http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=517</ref>

* [[Henri Poincaré]] (1854-1912), one of the greatest mathematicians ever and an original developer of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Poincaré, who had diphtheria as a child, received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school. He entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honor), in 1862 and spent eleven years there. He entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines. <ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

* [[Alexander Pope]] (1688-1744), one of the greatest and most-often quoted [[English]] poets and essayists. "From Twyford School he was expelled after writing a satire on one of the teachers. At home, Pope's aunt taught him to read. Latin and Greek he learned from a local priest and later he acquired knowledge of French and Italian poetry."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm</ref>

*[[Joseph Priestley]] (1733-1804), the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of oxygen, dropped out of school as a teenager and privately learned geometry, algebra and numerous languages.{{fact}}

*[[Bernhard Riemann]] (1826-1866), a German recognized as the greatest modern mathematician. He was taught at home by his father, a Lutheran minister, until he was ten. After that he was tutored by a teacher from a local school until he entered the Lyceum in Hannover at 14. <ref>School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland -- Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson[http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Riemann.html]</ref><ref>http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/199899/bioriema.htm</ref>

*[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1882-1945), U.S. President. He was educated by private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton, an elite private school in Massachusetts, in 1896. <ref>The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. "Franklin D. Roosevelt." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, 2003).
[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm]</ref>

*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1858–1919), U.S. President. "Roosevelt never enrolled in a public school. He was mostly instructed by private tutors until he entered Harvard College in 1876."<ref>http://law.enotes.com/presidential-biography/theodore-roosevelt-administrations/education</ref>

*[[George Bernard Shaw]] (1856-1950), author. Tutored in the classics by a clerical uncle until he entered school at age 10. Left school by age 15. <ref>Encyclopedia of World Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw/]</ref> <ref>Dictionary of Literary Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw-dlb/]</ref><ref>George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950 Biographical Sketch[http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/shaw.gb.bio.html]</ref>

*[[Mark Twain]] (real name was Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910), American author and satirist who said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Attended school through the 5th grade, where he "excelled only in spelling" and was frequently truant, then worked as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His mother said, "He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Mark Twain House and Museum: Biography of Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain [http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml]</ref><ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref>

* [[Leonardo da Vinci]] (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio. <ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

*[[Andrew Wyeth]] (1917- ), American artist, was tutored at home until he was 18. <ref>The Homeschooling of Andrew Wyeth, A Conversation with the Artist, Gifted Children Monthly, May 1986, Vol 7 No. 5.[http://www.nfgcc.org/51.htm] </ref>

*[[Frank Lloyd Wright]] (1867-1959), considered the finest architect ever, was homeschooled by his mother who dreamed that he would become an architect. She used "Froebel's geometric blocks to entertain and educate her son" as his father led the family among various Baptist churches, where he preached.<ref>http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/archs/wright/bio/index.html</ref> Wright then attended high school but dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0942394/bio</ref>

In addition, a number of prominent people have chosen to homeschool their children. [[David Guterson]], author of the novel ''Snow Falling on Cedars'' (1994), which won the 1995 [[PEN/Faulkner Award]], also wrote ''Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense'' (1992), an account of his family's homeschooling journey. <ref>www.randomhouse.com: David Guterson [http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/read/snow/guterson.html]</ref> Actor and recording artist Will Smith and his wife actress Jada Pinkett Smith homeschool their children. <ref>Reader's Digest: Will Power: Will Smith is One Driven Guy[http://www.rd.com/content/will-smith-interview/1/]</ref>. Roseanne Barr stated in an interview that she has started to homeschool her 11-year-old son.<ref>Reuters Interview - Roseanne Barr says age gives her a louder voice
[http://in.news.yahoo.com/070322/137/6dlba.html]</ref> Jimmy Wales, co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], also homeschools.<ref>http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html</ref> Kristin Maguire, head of the [[South Carolina]] board of education, which governs all its [[public schools]], homeschools all four of her children.<ref>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/09/17stjour.h27.html</ref>
----

== Arguably Homeschooled ==
Lists abound of famous homeschooled achievers, some more accurate than others.<ref>http://www.eadshome.com/Famoushomeschooled.htm</ref><ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref>. The following people have been found on such lists. Their educational background has not yet been researched by Conservapedia editors. ['''Note: everyone is invited to find citations for these listed below and with the citations move them up to the category above.''']

*'''Military'''
**[[Stonewall Jackson]]
**[[Douglas MacArthur]]

* '''Inventors and Scientists'''
**[[Alexander Graham Bell]] (1847-1922), inventor of the telephone.
**[[George Washington Carver]]
**[[Pierre Curie]]
**[[Cyrus McCormick]]
**[[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
**[[Booker T. Washington]]

*'''Leaders'''
**[[George Washington]]
**[[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
**[[James Madison]]
**[[William Henry Harrison]]
**[[John Tyler]]
**[[George Clymer]]
**[[William Livingston]]
**[[George Mason]]
**[[Charles Pickney III]]
**[[George Wyeth]]
**[[Patrick Henry]]
**[[William Penn]]
**[[Henry Clay]]
**[[John Jay]]
**[[John Marshall]]
**[[John Rutledge]]

*'''Religious Figures'''
**[[William Cary]]
**[[Jonathan Edwards]]
**[[Dwight L. Moody]]
**[[John Newton]]
**[[Charles Wesley]]
**[[John Wesley]]
**[[Brigham Young]]

*'''Writers'''
**[[Hans Christian Andersen]]
**[[Robert Browning]] (1812-1889), a brilliant English poet.
**[[Pearl S. Buck]]
**[[Bret Harte]]
**[[C. S. Lewis]]
**[[Sean O’Casey]]

*'''Artists and Social Figures'''
**[[Claude Monet]]
**[[John Burroughs]]
**[[George Rogers Clark]]
**[[Florence Nightingale]]
**[[Leo Tolstoy]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
*[[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]
*[[Homeschooling in England and Wales]]
[[Category:Education]]

==External links==
*[http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm Christian Children Must Have More Than A Fighting Chance] - Four reasons to homeschool your children, by [[Art Robinson]]
*[http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm] - List of homeschooled achievers.

2007-11-25T03:00:25Z

PeterS: /* Accusations of Bias */

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' is the national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates eight national television channels[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are it's regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref>. The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, and the BBC is ultimately responsible to the [[BBC Trust]] and to the government. The BBC produces many well known television programmes, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and ''Doctor Who''.

The BBC repeatedly says it is 'independent' but it clearly has an agenda all of its own. Furthermore, although the BBC is technically not-for-profit, it has an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is a major publisher in its own right.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/]

==Accusations of Bias==

Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinize governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
'''*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has “a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world'''

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>.

Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-11-25T02:57:01Z

PeterS: /* Jerusalem, Israel */

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-11-22T01:53:39Z

PeterS: Inconsistent statement removed, please see talk page

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' is the national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates eight national television channels[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are it's regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref>. The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, and the BBC is ultimately responsible to the [[BBC Trust]] and to the government. The BBC produces many well known television programmes, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and ''Doctor Who''.

The BBC repeatedly says it is 'independent' but it clearly has an agenda all of its own. Furthermore, although the BBC is technically not-for-profit, it has an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is a major publisher in its own right.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/]

==Accusations of Bias==

Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinize governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
'''*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has “a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world'''

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>.

Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

2007-10-01T00:33:54Z

PeterS:

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Sampling error isn't significantly affected by the percentage of the population included in the sample -- a representative sample of 1000 is as reliable in the USA as it is in Monaco. The problem in this case is that it's difficult to justify the assumption that those who self identify as liberal or conservative are representative of the community of Wikipedia editors. It may well be true that there are six times as many liberal Wikipedians than conservative, but it's not statistically reasonable to conclude that from a self-selected sample such as this.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The last time I looked at Wikipedia, the same size was 274 (for conservatives + liberals). This is not a large sample. The total percent sample size is about half that for a Harris poll (that it admits that it has errors that gives that it cannot give a good confidence[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548]), however the sample for wikipedia is self selected meaning that you cannot use it to make statistically responsible statements.[http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/2006/samp_err_stmt.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments. --[[User:Order]] 10 May.
3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gulik2 is absolutely right. See Perry (1970) 'Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Year: A scheme'. Perry says that intellectual development occurs as follows:
# 'Dualism' - a simple interpretation of the world as black/white, us/them , good/bad etc.
# 'Multiplicity'; -= an acceptance that there are different points of view and they cannot be simply labelled good/bad etc.
# 'Relativism' - requires that the different points of view are contextualiised, and that knowledge/behaviour in one context may be perfectly acceptable and correct, may not be appropriate in another.

for a source see: http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheory.html

What occurs to me is all that if Perry is correct, with the obsession with Liberals/Conservative points of view, many contributors on this site do not seem to have developed intellectually much further than their freshman year. Hm. Think I'll write an article about this...--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Perry Theory]] for the article --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Where did "12" come from?? ==

Ed, where did your "12" come from?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It would be informative if somebody with access to the appropriate data could calculate the LQ for Conservapedia, for purposes of comparison? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An X for a Y, for an L, for a C ==

This article has a few problems.

#X is defined as number of liberals, and Y is defined as number of conservatives. X/(X+Y) is '''the same''' as L/(L+C). The article argues that they are different, proving that the author doesn't know how to work with variables. And it proves that the author doesn't read his own definitions.
#The criticism that a measure is between 0 and 1, shows that the critic doesn't know that such a measure is equivalent to a measure that ranges between 0 and infinity. Take for example the negative logarithm of the first measure. It just show that the author has not the faintest idea about functions over an infinite domain.
#The remark that an increase from 90% to 99% is ''just'' a 10% increase, shows that the author doesn't know how to interpreter percentages. People who do work with percentages know that the difference between 90% and 99% is an order of magnitude.
#The comparison with other metrics is flawed, because the author didn't compare it with any metric that is actually used in literature. Earlier versions of this article pointed to alternative definitions of liberal bias. None of them is mentioned.
#Finally, this article repeats the old misinformation that the ratio liberal in the wikipedia is 3:1, while it is 1:2 in the American public. It doesn't mention the sources, nor that, if you look at the sources, this comparison is based on nothing but quick sand. It just shows that the author has no idea about statistics.

As a summary, this article proves nicely that in conservapedia conservative bias is more important than facts. Even basic mathematics, which is neither liberal or conservative, is canned to make a poor argument. [[User:Order]] 10 May

I saw that Aschlafly fixed some optinionated part of the article, without actually fixing any of the fundamental flaws. I would suggest to fix the fundamental flaws first. It, for example, still argues that X/(X+Y), where X are Liberals, and Y Conservatives, is different from L/(L+C), where L stands for Liberals, and C for Conservatives. If you want to fix something, fix that first. [[User:Order]] 11 May.

== Update ==

I extended and updated the article on ''liberal quotient''. If you find typos or factual errors, please feel free to fix it. [[User:Order]] May 13.

== How conservative is the US? ==
The article says "According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [1], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.", but according to Aschlafly, Jack Abramoff wasn't a conservative<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=158024&oldid=158009</ref>, despite his ties to Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Oliver North; his membership on G. W. Bush's transition team, etc. Rudy Giuliani made a statement held up as a "liberal falsehood of the day"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&diff=154374&oldid=153131</ref>, so is presumably not a conservative either. Given this, it certainly doesn't appear to me that merely self-identifying as such is enough to be considered a 'conservative' for this site, and the Harris Poll shouldn't be used to determine how conservative the country is. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:You make a good point, that will go ignored here. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

this may be picky, but wouldnt' this liberal quotient be more accurately called a liberal conservative ratio? Something about this jangles the statistics part of my brain.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: That's redundant. It would be like requiring everyone to say how hot versus cold it is outside, rather than simply "how hot is it?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not really: temperature is the correct term.
And while heat is real, cold is just the absent of heat (absence of energy).

While Conservatism and Liberalism are both real political movements: there is no reason why this couldn't be called the conservative quotient, or the liberal/conservative ratio.

Anyone ever considered that wikipedia might be more liberal than the American public, because it has a lot of non-American editors?
And despite the gossip on wikipedia, a large part of its edits are scientific/mathematical in nature, and highly educated people simply tend to be more liberal than average Joe...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: This why the liberal quotient is considered so useful. If wikipedia would have for 99.6% articles that are NPOV, for 0.3% with a liberal POV, and 0.1% articles with a conservative POV, its liberal quotient would still be 3:1. It doesn't matter how neutral Wikipedia is, as long as the biased fraction is biased towards liberals. You might argue that if Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.6% NPOV, Conservapedia would have no reason to complain, but Conservapedia thinks differently. And it should indeed be called liberal/conservative quotient, to be precise. [[User:Order]] May 16, 9:50 am (AEST)
:: If that was to be the measure, then conservapedia would have an infinite conservative quotient which means that it is also infinitely more conservative than the American populace because there are no articles that have a liberal bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Is the denominator the total number of individuals in a population or the number of non-liberals? ==

I see people don't agree on the definition of this term. When I hear the term for the first time, I imagine the denominator is the total number of individuals, which is the sum of the number of non-liberals and the number of liberals. Otherwise I'd see it as a confusing term. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 22:44, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: The moderates add nothing to the mix. Including the moderates in the denominator results in the loss of information, as 1 liberal and 99 moderates is very different from 1 liberal and 99 conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Hence moderates do add to the mix. You say it yourself, it matters if there are 99 conservatives, or 99 moderates. [[User:Order]] July 3

== Are these figures out of date? ==

I followed the links in the article, and it seems there are now 81 Liberal Wikipedians and 71 Conservative Wikipedians, with 26 moderates. This reduces Wikipedia's liberal quotient from 3:1 to a mere 1.15:1. If these statistics are so prone to change, can they really be trusted? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Identical criticisms ==

Although most of the stuff under "Criticism" relates to different things, there are two parts whihc appear to be the same:
:Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identifying neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public. A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although some might claim the latter group is more liberal.
And this:
:An encyclopedia with 99.7% unbiased articles, 0.2% liberally biased articles, and 0.1% conservatively biased articles, has the same liberal bias as a product with 66.6% liberally biased articles, 33.3% conservative articles , 0.1% unbiased articles. However, the first would be considered a reliable source of information, while the second would be highly unreliable. And this despite having the same liberal quotient.
Both make the point that the use of ratios can distort the data range. Merge them? [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 20:33, 30 September 2007 (EDT)