Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fidel Castro

2013-02-24T22:18:58Z

RobertE: /* He's alive */ new section

__TOC__
I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, apparently he's alive. He's made a public reappearance a couple of days ago. He looks quite ill, though. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 14:02, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::And he was wearing a Nike jacket. Where is his hate to "American Imperialism"? This is liberal hypocrisy at its worst. I bet most cubans are not even allowed to buy one of those jackets.--[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 14:56, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::CBS News reporting on Castro death rumors: ''[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1859015.html State Secret: Is Castro Dead?]'', Brian Goodman, September 22, 2009. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Since the last contribution to this discussion was two years ago, I just thought I'd chime in. Unless there was a revolution in plastic surgery I'm unaware of, this is Fidel Castro, speaking about Obama and the Republican nomination. He speaks about recent events in Syria and Lybia, mentions the POTUS as being almost powerless (so obviously he means Obama), and the last time there was a Republican nomination without a Dem nomination at the same time was in 1996, so this video could hardly be that old. Is this enough for us to at least consider the possibility of him being alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPcXhLojPo8
[[User:Fbelard|Fbelard]] 14:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Here's a recent picture of himself, his brother, and Hugo Chavez: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-colombia-farc-talks]. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:14, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

And here`s a picture of February the 3rd 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/04/fidel-castro-says-hugo-chavez-condition-improving-in-battle-against-pelvic/ --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:31, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:The man photographed is too young to be Castro - look at his skin, the tell-tale sign of age. He's also too short to be Castro, assuming average height for those around him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::Watch this [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57567465/fidel-castro-hits-polls-in-rare-public-appearance/ video]. You can clearly see that the man in the video is elderly, frail, and stooped with age. You can also see that the man is quite obviously Fidel Castro. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 14:05, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:::Your comment is non-responsive to my specific points: the stand-in's skin is too young (and dissimilar to Castro), his height is too short, and it is generally implausible that an extremely sick, elderly man who likely had a terminal disease in 2006, is inexplicably fit and active more than six years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::::Try watching the video I linked to. The man isn't short, he's become severely stooped with age. His skin is on par with individuals of his age, and if you had watched the video, you wouldn't be describing him as "fit and active". --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:12, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Category liberalism ==

Really? He's a communist. I think most people, including himself, would say that he's not a liberal. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:45, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

== He's alive ==

Multiple reference testify to Castro's continued life. Please supply references proving otherwise before reverting again. I refer you to your own Conservapedia Commandments. Obey them or admit they are no longer relevant to this project. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Fidel Castro

2013-02-24T22:17:48Z

RobertE: Undo revision 1036470 by Aschlafly (talk) No. It's time to admit you're wrong on this, Andy. He's alive. Deal with it.

'''''See [[Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?]]'''''

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[File:young_castro_2.jpg|200px]]
| name =Fidel Castro
| birth =August 13, 1926 Birán, Oriente Province, [[Cuba]]
| parents =Angel Castro y Argiz Lina Ruz González (out of wedlock)
| religion =Atheist
| education =University of Havana
| spouse =Mirta Diaz-Balart (1948–1955)
Dalia Soto del Valle (1980–present)
| children =
| death = 2006(approx.)
| deathmanner = illness
| burial =
| country =Cuba
| military =26th of July Movement (guerrilla organization)
| rank =n/a
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[Communism]]
| party =Communist Party of Cuba
| dictatordate =July, 1959
| war =[[Cuban Revolution]] [[Angola]]n Civil War War in [[Mozambique]] [[Ethiopia]]n Guerilla War Cuban Missile Crisis [[Congo]] Crisis [[El Salvador]]an Guerilla War [[Nicaragua]]n Civil War
| deathnumber =1,500,000 at home 500-100,000 in Angola
}}
'''Fidel Castro''' (born August 13, 1926) was the brutal [[communist]] [[dictator]] of [[Cuba]] from 1959 to 2006. Fidel Castro is an [[atheism|atheist]]. Ill health forced him to resign as Cuba's Head of State, but he is still well enough to meet visiting rulers, and even managed to attend the opening of his country's parliament in February 2012.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21568158 Cuba parliament opens as Fidel Castro visits], ''BBC News'', 24 February 2013</ref>

He held the posts of [[Prime Minister|prime minister]] (1959-1976) and president of the Council of State and president of the Council of Ministers (1976-2006).<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Govt</ref> His oppressive rule lasted almost 50 years and killed scores of thousands. He has not been seen publicly since July 2006, when he underwent intestinal surgery, and is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009; the communists running Cuba have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away.<ref>''[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1859015.html State Secret: Is Castro Dead?]'', Brian Goodman, ''CBS News'', September 22, 2009.</ref> After a long absence from the public eye, he was purportedly shown in photographs in June of 2010, released by the Cuban State News Agency. In August 2010, the Associated Press had a story of a purported Castro speech to the Cuban parliament. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/cuba-state-tv-fidel-castro-attend-parliament-meeting-time-years-1415326051/?test=latestnews</ref> ''The fact remains there hasn't been a reputable, independent account of Castro being alive in nearly a year.'' Other authoritarian regimes, such as [[North Korea]] and [[Nazi Germany]] have engaged in "body-doubles" and actor/impersonators to hide the death or incapacitation of despots in the past. <ref>[http://www.mahalo.com/kim-jong-il-body-doubles Kim Jong Il Body Doubles]</ref> <ref>[http://www.blackraiser.com/nredoubt/identity.htm Hitler body-double]</ref> In April 2011, Castro allegedly stepped down as head of the Cuban communist Party, but it has not been confirmed that this was not a ruse. <ref>http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=41125</ref>

{{cquote|'''I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a business man who had escaped from Castro. And in the midst of one of his stories, my friends turned to the other and said, ‘we don’t know how lucky ''we'' are.’ ''And the Cuban stopped and said, ‘How lucky YOU are, I had some place to escape to.’'' In that sentence he told us the entire story of Cuba, and Castro. -- [[Ronald Reagan]] <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan]</ref>}} 

== Early years of Castro ==
There is much that is not known of Castro's rural youth. However, it is generally conceded that his father was [[Ángel María Bautista Castro y Argiz]] and his mother [[Lina Ruz González]]. Official biographies are essentially hagiographies and the more extreme of his many detractors portray a wild and irregular life typical of a the worst element of his class. Castro has numerous siblings of various combination of parentage; for instance, it is widely believed that Raul Castro has the same mother but is not a son of Fidel Castro's father. The most accepted biography is that of Geyer 2002 <ref>Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643</ref> while a new series biographies by Norberto Fuentes (2004, and later),<ref>Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012</ref> a former propagandist for the Cuban Government, are attracting attention.

During his student years Fidel Castro was deeply involved in lethal violence.<ref>Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065</ref> This violence also extended overseas to his involvement in the 1948 Colombian Bogotazo.<ref>Bowden, Mark 2002 Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw. Penguin ISBN-10 0142000957
ISBN-13 978-014200095 e,g Page 4: "... But the event had also attracted critics, leftist agitators, among them a young Cuban student leader named Fidel Castro. To them the fledgling OAS was a sop, a sellout, an alliance with the gringo imperialists of the north. … The young rebels like the twenty-one year old Castro anticipated a decade of revolution ..." Page 7: "... cities. Many policemen, devotees of the slain leader, joined the angry mobs in the streets, as did student revolutionaries like Castro. The leftists donned red armbands and tried to direct the crowd, ..." State Departments reports by William Wieland mention Rafael del Pino but oddly omit mention of Fidel Castro </ref>
<ref>Davis, Jack Posted May 08, 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) The Bogotazo, CIA Archives https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm
Central Intelligence Agency Posted May 08 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm page 4 “There were many foreign radicals in Bogota at the time, to advertise their causes in the publicity extended to the Conference of American States. Fidel Castro, then 22 years old, happened to be one of them. Thorough investigations indicate that he played only a minor role. Castro subsequently reported that he tried to turn the mob into a revolutionary force, but was defeated by the onset of drunkenness and looting. The episode may have influenced his adoption in Cuba in the 1950s of a guerrilla strategy rather than one of revolution through urban disorders.” </ref>
Castro was trained as a lawyer studying at the University of Havana. In 1953 he led the first of many assaults against the ruling military regime of general [[Fulgencio Batista]]. A 1953 attack against military barracks in Santiago de Cuba was a failure,<ref>de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729
</ref> and Castro, alongside his brother Raul, was captured they, unlike a number of his companions, were spared irregular execution by intervention of Roman Catholic Church members. In a courtroom speech in his defense (heavily edited in published form, and titled "La Historia me absolverá", or "History will absolve me"), Castro outlined his plans for reforms, demanding a return to the 1940 constitution, the ending of corrupt practices and a more equal distribution of land. There was no formal death penalty in Cuba at the time. After three years of incarceration on the Isle of Youth (then Isle of Pines), both Castro brothers were released during an amnesty.

Upon release, the Castro brothers relocated to [[Mexico]] to avoid imminent reprisals from paramilitary groups affiliated with the Batista regime, lead by former communist and long time rival of Castro [[Roland Masferrer]]<ref>Masferrer, Marc, 2006 Rolando Masferrer, the man from Holguín http://marcmasferrer.typepad.com/uncommon_sense/2006/10/rolando_masferr.html and also http://www.cuban-exile.com/menu2/2rolando.html</ref>. In [[Mexico]] Castro organized a group of revolutionaries to return to Cuba and overthrow Batista. They became known as the 26th of July movement. This group included the Argentinian [[Che Guevara]]. In December 1956 Castro and 81 others boarded the Granma yacht, sailed to eastern Cuba, and began the armed struggle against the current regime.

The landing was preceded in Santiago and the rest of Oriente Province by an armed rising of the 26 of July urban Militia, a non-communist organization, lead by [[Frank Pais]].<ref>Alvarez, Jose 2008 Principio y Fin del Mito Fidelista. Trafford Publishing, Victoria, BC Canada ISBN-10 1425154042
ISBN-13: 978-1425154042 http://www.amazon.com/Principio-fin-del-mito-fidelista/dp/1425154042
This is the most up to date description of the crucial role that the non-communist militia of Frank Pais played in the "War Against Batista." Without Frank Pais there would not have been a "Fidel Castro." This book describes in detail and with dispassionate analysis how Frank Pais supported the Castro effort and how he was betrayed, and killed. It is a sad and only too real description of the hijacking of the resistance against Batista by communist activists including Castro himself.</ref> In the mountains the guidance of the bandit [[Cresencio Perez]], and and a few communist [[sleepers]] who had been placed in the Sierra for some time under the direction of stalinist agent [[Fabio Grobart]] was important. Some local [[guajiros]] in the remote Sierra Maestra region joined in to became the nucleus of the critical scouting and picketing force of [[Escopeteros]] who screened the better armed Castro main force. The support and guidance from revolutionary groups in the cities of Santiago, [[Havana]], elsewhere in Cuba and overseas was critical. The support of the U.S. State Department, mediated by [[William Weiland]] (aka Guillermo Arturo Montenegro) was significant from the time of the Bogotazo, through the [[Bay of Pigs]].<ref>Smith, Earl E.T. 1962 (last accessed 9-29-07) The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution Random House ASIN: B000H5CT5M</ref>

By 1958, military attacks against Batista's army were having some success,<ref>Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765</ref> and the revolution was gaining national support. Castro maintained a position of diplomatic neutrality amongst various revolutionary factions, which included upper and middle class liberals, guajiros, and agricultural workers, communists and others, and hence was able to assume the position of director of the revolution. He was also largely successful in courting international support via astute and careful use of the media. Officials within the CIA and the United States government were divided over whether to support Castro. Some believed that Batista had become a liability, and that his overthrow was inevitable. Other officials feared the influence of known communists in Castro's camp including Guevara, though Castro himself repeatedly stressed that he himself was not a communist.

The revolution finally succeeded in late 1958, and on January 1st 1959, Batista left the country. Castro had chosen exiled leaders Manuel Urrutia Lleó and José Miró Cardona, both anti-communist liberals with good relations with the U.S., to head the new government. Castro himself became head of the new armed forces. However, the increasing presence of communists in the decision making process created an early split in the government. Castro and Urrutia both insisted publicly that they had relations with each other, but Urrutia and Miró resigned only months later, and Castro, with support from mass organizations, assumed the position of prime minister. Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado, a former Commodore of the Cienfuegos Yacht Club became president and head of state.

==In Power==

The process of obtaining permanent power was dramatic, traumatic and bloody. From 1959 on, mass killings of dissidents were carried out as a matter of course by the infamous "''firing squads.''" Immediately after the Communist take-over, some 2,500 army officers were rounded up and shot dead.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> [[Che Guevara]] reportedly stayed up late into the night signing death warrants for defenseless "reactionaries." Tens of thousands were sent to concentration camps.<ref>Frank Calzon, Castro’s Gulag (Council for Inter-American Security, 1979).</ref> Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers were clubbed with rifle butts as they pleaded for their family members to be spared. One of Castro's exiled opponents describes it this way:

''"The Castro regime came to power by deception and terror, resulting in what can only be described as a state of war against the Cuban people. Executions, labor camps, forced re-locations and exile, and the imposition of a repressive military police force to exercise control over civilian society."''<ref>"Ziva" 6-8-08 Human Rights Advocacy and the Role of the Media. Babalublog http://www.babalublog.com/</ref>

As prime minister, and then president from 1976, Castro ruled the country in line with Stalinist policies, seizing [[private property]] and eliminating [[free speech]] and [[free press]]. He was infamous for his overly long speeches, often rambling on for hours, which can be seen as an example of [[Liberal style]].

Castro, who had been in regular contact with the KGB since 1956 and who used Soviet arms during his guerilla war, welcomed the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba to deter an American attack. This decision precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis, a major confrontation in the Cold War that nearly resulted in the cataclysmic death of millions. According to Guevara: "If the [Soviet nuclear] rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York."<ref>UPI, December 10, 1962.</ref> Nikita Khrushchev wrote
that, according to Castro, "we needed to immediately deliver a nuclear missile strike
against the United States… a proposal that placed the planet on the brink of extinction."<ref>James G. Blight et al., Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp29.</ref> Fidel
Castro admitted: "I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons."<ref>Ibid, pp. 252</ref> On October 26, 1962, the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the U.S., was armed with a 15 kiloton nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. Captain Valentin Savitsky ordered his crew to prepare the use of a nuclear torpedo against the Americans, but crew member Vasili Arkhipov stepped in and quite literally saved the world.

In the aftermath of the crisis, the United States maintained a strict embargo on Cuba. As a result, Castro sought close ties with anti-American Communist states, and became dependant on aid from Moscow. He supplied massive amounts of military aid to [[North Korea]] and especially to [[North Vietnam]], where Cuban forces allegedly helped torture American POWs during the [[Vietnam War]].

Ever eager to make trouble, Castro dispatched Che to assist the Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila in the [[Congo]], who were "murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony."<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> The [[CIA]] fought a proxy war with Communist forces in the Congo, which descended into a complex maze of chaotic maneuverings and betrayals by several major world powers.

Castro, all the while maintaining an "anti-imperialist" political posture, would intervene extensively in the internal affairs of African nations through violence and war. Cuban military intervention to save the communist MPLA dictatorship in [[Angola]] from collapse led to decades of civil war that cost as many as 1 million lives.<ref>Médecins Sans Frontières, “Angola: An Alarming Nutritional Situation,” August 1999</ref> Castro also dispatched Cuban troops to fight on behalf of the Communist dictatorship in [[Ethiopia]], which killed 1.25 million people through massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Washington Post, March 18, 1978 (Ethiopia intervention); New York Times, December 14, 1994 (Ethiopia death toll).</ref>

Soviet and Cuban support for communist violence caused civil wars in [[Nicaragua]], [[El Salvador]], [[Honduras]] and [[Guatemala]].<ref>Alberto R. Coll, “Soviet Arms and Central American Turmoil,” World Affairs, Summer 1985.</ref> Support from the Cuban government was also given to terrorists from the [[PLO]].<ref>[http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y02/apr02/15e6.htm Castro's Anti-Semitism and the PLO]</ref>

Castro has repeatedly ordered acts of war against the United States. Beyond the missile crisis, Castro maintains a huge electronic espionage complex directed at U.S. shores, conducts research into biological warfare and sponsors international terrorist groups.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2802-starve-the-castro-regime-help-the-cuban-people</ref> Cuban intelligence had ties with the Communist [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], who later assassinated President [[John F. Kennedy]].<ref>htmlhttp://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28091</ref> In the seventies, Castro deliberately sent dozens of dangerous criminals to US shores;<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_exiles.html</ref> he responded to overtures from President [[Bill Clinton]] by ordering a deadly attack on an American plane.<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/22/bill_clinton_loses_his_cool_in</ref>

On February 23, 1988, the Cuban poet Armando Valladares, who was a prisoner in the Cuban gulag for 22 years, addressed the [[United Nations]] Commission on Human Rights. In his speech, he stated:

<blockquote>
I recall when they kept me in a punishment cell, naked, with several fractures on one leg which never received medical care; today, those bones remain jammed up together and displaced. One of the regular drills among the guards was to stand on the steel mesh ceiling and throw at my face buckets full of urine and excrement.

Mr. Chairman, I know the taste of the urine and the excrement of other men: That practice does not leave marks; marks are left by beatings with steel rods and by bayonet thrusts. My head is still covered with scars and you can feel the cracks.

But, what can inflict more damage to human dignity, the urine and excrements thrown all over your face or a bayonet's blow? Which is the appropriate article for the discussion of this subject? Under which technical point does it fall? Under what batch of papers, numbers, lines and bars should we include this trampling of human dignity?

The violation of human rights was not a matter of reports, of negotiated resolutions, of elegant and diplomatic rhetoric, for us it was a daily suffering.

For me it meant eight thousand days of hunger, of systematic beatings, of hard labor, of solitary confinement, of cells with steel-planked windows and doors, of solitude.

Eight thousand days of struggling to prove that I was a human being. Eight thousand days of proving that my spirit could triumph over exhaustion and pain. Eight thousand days of testing my religious convictions, my faith, of fighting the hate my atheist jailers were trying to instill in me with each bayonet thrust, fighting so that hate would not flourish in my heart. Eight thousand days of struggling so that I would not become like them, rejecting torture as a mean to fight, forcing myself to forgive, rejecting the thoughts of revenge, reprisal and cruelty.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/625-torture-in-castro-s-cuba.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Castro's policies imposed poverty and slavery on millions.<ref>Nick Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism (Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp188, 196-206, 240-6.</ref> In 1959, Cuba was the second richest country in Latin America; today, it is the second poorest.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/5404-castro-s-cuba-at-fifty-no-freedom-no-fish.html</ref> Most pharmacies in Cuba do not even have aspirins.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4402-aid-from-self-serving-autocrats.html</ref> Cuba is plagued with a humanitarian catastrophe involving massive and widespread malnutrition and lack of basic goods; death, suffering, and misery is the result.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2538-bad-cuban-medicine.html</ref> The streets are now choked with scenes of starving peasants frantically pleading for food.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In September 2010, Castro admitted that "the Cuban model doesn't even work."<ref>www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel</ref>

Castro has been accused of genocide by ''Genocide Watch.''<ref>http://www.genocidewatch.org/</ref> He has been sued for genocide in [[Belgium]] and [[Spain]].<ref>http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/castrosuedgenocide.html</ref>

The estimated number of deaths attributable to the Castro regime varies according to different sources—but not by much. The number of named, documented victims (with 2 or more sources) established by recent scholarship is 86,000, excluding an estimated minimum<ref>http://www.cubaverdad.net/genocide.htm</ref> of 16,282 deaths in war and combat, for a conservative total of 112,000.<ref>http://cubaarchive.org/home/</ref> R.J. Rummel, in his book ''Statistics of Democide'' estimates a range of 35-141,000 killed, which may underestimate the full toll by as much as 50%, since it only covers the years 1959-87.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM</ref> The most comprehensive survey, by Armando Lago, puts the total at 116,730-119,730 killed.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Cuba59</ref> The majority (85,000) of these deaths were caused by drowning; the firing squads account for some 30,000. Adding combat deaths to his calculations, we arrive at a total of some 136,000 Cubans killed by the Castro regime. Little effort has been made to calculate boat people deaths in recent years. Cuban exiles claim that as many as 200,000 have been murdered altogether.<ref>http://www.therealcuba.com/</ref> The death toll from Cuban interventions abroad can be numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

==Death and purported sightings==

In August 2006, health problems led to the appointment of his younger brother, Raul, as temporarily president and head of the Communist Party in Cuba. Political analysts believe that the appointment marks the beginning of a transition designed to maintain Communist control over Cuba after Castro's death<ref>The Washington Post, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080100647.html For Castro, a First Step In Calculated Transition ]</ref>. Castro's surgery was scheduled to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding." <ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/latin_america/july-dec06/castro_08-01.html</ref>

Bonded by their hate for the United States and capitalism, Castro and [[Venezuela]]n dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] created a close relationship. Both socialist countries have worked together on various political ventures.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166355,00.html</ref>.

On May 1, 2007, Castro did not attend Cuba's annual celebration of May Day, leading many to believe that he had died. While Castro allegedly met with Brazilian President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva]] on February 25, 2010, <ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghGthxqnYMWcICCnEkjH5ayqPamQD9E356IO1</ref> there is no independent confirmation that this was not in fact a body-double.

On February 18, 2006, communist Cuba publicly recognized that Fidel Castro was no longer President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.<ref>http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2008/02/19/nacional/artic10.html</ref> He was succeeded by his brother, [[Raul Castro]].

In September of 2011, it was reported that a Venezuelan reporter had interviewed Castro <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/cubas-fidel-castro-breaks-long-silence-in-interview-with-venezuelan-television/2011/09/08/gIQA08FSCK_story.html</ref>, but independent media have not confirmed that this was not actually a doppelganger standing in for the long-deceased Castro.

In February 2012 the mainstream media reported that Castro met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Predictably there have been no reports from the liberal media as to whether this was actually Castro or a lookalike <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-cuba-brazil-idUSTRE8100B620120201 Brazil's Rousseff meets with Fidel Castro in Cuba]</ref>.

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

==Other Sources==

Alba, Víctor 1968 Politics and the labor movement in Latin America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. ASIN B0006BNYGK

Álvarez Batista, Gerónimo 1983. III Frente a las puertas de Santiago. Editorial Letras Cubanas, Havana.

Ameringer, Charles D 1995 The Caribbean Legion Patriots, Politicians, Soldiers of Fortune, 1946-1950 Pennsylvania State University Press (December, 1995) (Paperback) ISBN 0271014520

Anderson, Jon Lee 1997. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, Bantam Press, ISBN 0553406647 or Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-1600-0

Anton, Alex and Roger E. Hernandez 2002 Cubans in America: A Vibrant History of a People in Exile Kensington Publishing Corporation (May, 2002) ISBN 157566593X

Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765

Carrillo, Justo 1985 Cuba 1933: Estudiantes, Yanquis y Soldados. University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute ISBN 0935501002 Transaction Publishers (January 1994) ISBN 1560006900

Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN 0262020653

de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729

Duarte Oropesa, José 1989 Historiología Cubana. Ediciones Universal Miami Vol 1. ISBN 0897294904, All volumes ISBN 8439925808

El'Toro, John Demico Chicano 2005 Cuban Secrets: I look like a Jackson Tribunal Publishing Corporation (July, 2005) ISBN 0544235617

Enamorado, Calixto 1917 Tiempos. Heroicos Persecucion. Rambla, Bauza and Company, Havana.

Encinosa, Enrique G. l989 La Guerra Olvidada Un Libro Historico De Los Combatientes Anticastristas En Cuba (1960-1966). Editorial SIBI, Miami

Evans, Walker (Photographer), and [[Andrei Codrescu]] 2001 Walker Evans: Cuba (Hardcover) J. Paul Getty Trust Publications ISBN 0892366176

Fermoselle, Rafael 1992 Cuban leadership after Castro: Biographies of Cuba's top commanders. North-South Center, University of Miami, Research Institute for Cuban Studies; 2nd ed.

[[Humberto Fontova|Fontova, Humberto]] 2005 Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant. Regnery Publishing Company, Washington DC. ISBN 0895260433

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

George, Edward 2005 The Cuban Intervention In Angola, 1965-1991: From Che Guevara To Cuito Cuanavale. Frank Cass Publishers, London & Portland, Oregon ISBN 0415350158

Gonzalez, Servando 2002 The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol. Spooks Books, U.S. ISBN 0971139105 ISBN 0971139113

Greene, Graham 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

Guevara, Ernesto “Che” (and Waters, Mary Alice editor) 1996 Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War 1956-1958. Pathfinder New York (see reference to “El Viscaíno” on page 186). ISBN 0873488245.

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Guerrilla attack on the Barracks de la Plata. In: The Mammoth book of War Stories. Jon. E. Lewis, editor, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York 1999 Edition Printed and bound in United Kingdom. ISBN 0786706295 pp. 507-512.

Gutiérrez, Pedro Juan 1998 (Translation 2001) Dirty Havana Trilogy, Faber and Faber, London ISBN 0571206263

Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643

Jimenez Pastrana, Juan 1983. Los Chinos en la Historia de Cuba: 1847-1930. Editorial de Sciencias Sociales, Havana,

Kapcia A. 2002. The Siege of the Hotel Nacional, Cuba, 1933: A Reassessment. Journal of Latin American Studies, 34, 283-309.

Kelshall, Gaylord T. M. 1994 The U-Boat War in the Caribbean United States Naval Institute Annapolis Maryland ISBN 1557504520

Kissinger, Henry 2000 Years of renewal. Simon & Schuster ISBN 0684855720

Kost, William E. 2004 Cuban agriculture: to be or not to be organic. Cuba in Transition 14, 274-281.

Lagas, Jacques 1964 Memorias de un capitán rebelde. Editorial del Pácifico. Santiago, Chile.

Lazo, Mario 1968 Dagger in the heart: American policy failures in Cuba. Twin Circle. NewYork

Lazo, Rodrigo 2005 Writing to Cuba Filibustering and Cuban Exiles in the United States. University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 0807855944

Loiret, F; Ortega, E; Kleiner, D; Ortega-Rodes, P; Rodes, R; Dong, Z 2004 A putative new endophytic nitrogen-fixing bacterium Pantoea sp. from sugarcane J. Appl. Microbiol., 97 (3) 504-511.

López, Juan J. 2003 Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore Maryland ISBN 0801870461

Lowinger, Rosa and Ofelia Fox 2005 Tropicana Nights. The Life and Times of the Legendary Cuban Nightclub. Harcourt, Orlando, New York, London ISBN 0151012245

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Márquez, Nicolás 2004 La otra parte de la verdad. Ediciones de Autor ISBN 9874382678

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos and Manuel 1975, Historia de la Isla de Cuba, Regents Publishing Co., NY, ISBN 0-88345-251-0

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos 1969, Historia de Cuba (desde Cristobal Colon a Fidel Castro), Las Americas Publishing Co., NY [revision of 1963 original edition]

Márquez-Sterling, Manuel 2009, Cuba 1952-1959: The True Story of Castro's Rise to Power, Kleiopatria Digital Press, Wintergreen VA, ISBN 0615318568

Marrero, Levi 1981 5th edition "Geografia de Cuba" La Moderna Poesia, Coral Gables Florida.

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Martin, Lionel 1978 The Early Fidel: Roots of Castro's Communism Lyle Stuart, Secaucus New Jersey; 1st ed edition ISBN 0818402547

Martin, Paul Sidney George L. Quimby and Donald Collier 1947 Indians before Columbus;: Twenty thousand years of North American history revealed by archeology, The University of Chicago press, Chicago Illinois . ASIN B0006AR3AE pp. 40-46.

Matos, Huber, 2002. Como llego la Noche. Tusquet Editores, SA, Barcelona. ISBN 8483109441

Morán Arce, Lucas 1980 La revolución cubana, 1953-1959: Una versión rebelde Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica; ISBN

Orro Fernandez, Roberto 2004 Education and labor skills in Socialist Cuba. Cuba in Transition-ASCE 10, 224-230.

Ortiz, Fernando 1995 edition, (translated from 1947 original by Harriet de Onís) Cuban counterpoint Tobacco and Sugar. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina and London ISBN 08223161161

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 1997. Zona Rebelde. La diplomacia Española ante la revolución cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 847926263X

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 2001. Zona de Guerra. España ante la Revolución Cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 8479263644

Nuñez Jimenez, Antonio 1959 Geografía de Cuba. Lex. Havana

Phillips, R Hart 1935 Cuban side show. Cuban Press, Havana 2nd edition. ASIN: B000860P60

Phillips, R Hart. 1959 Cuba, Island of Paradox. McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY ASIN: B0007E0OAU

Phillips, R Hart. 1960 Cuba Island of Paradise 1960 Astor-Honor Inc, ISBN 0839250126

Phillips, Ruby Hart 1961- The Tragic Island: How Communism Came to Cuba. Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Phillips, R Hart. 1962 The Cuban dilemma McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY Library of Congress number 6218787

Pirala, Antonio (1895, 1896 and some from 1874) Anales de la Guerra en Cuba. Felipe González Rojas, Madrid

Priestland, Jane (editor) 2003 British Archives on Cuba: Cuba under Castro 1959-1962. Archival Publications International Limited, 2003, London ISBN 1903008204

Puebla, Teté (Brigadier General Cuban Armed Forces) 2003 Marianas in Combat: and the Mariana Grajales Women's Platoon in Cuba's Revolutionary War 1956-58, New York Pathfinder ISBN 0873489578

Ramos, M. G., Villatoro, MAA, Urquiaga, S, Alves, BJR and: Boddey, RM 2001 Quantification of the contribution of biological nitrogen fixation to tropical green manure crops and the residual benefit to a subsequent maize crop using super(15)N-isotope techniques J. Biotechnol. 91 (2-3)105-115

Rodriguez, Felix I. and John Weisman 1989 Shadow Warrior/the CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles Simon & Schuster, New York ISBN 0671667211

Rojo del Río, Manuel. 1981 La Historia Cambio En La Sierra. Editorial Texto, San José, Costa Rica 2a Ed. Aumentada

Roloff y Mialofsky, Carlos and Gerardo Forrest 1901. Yndice Alfabetico y Difunctiones del Ejercito Libertador de Cuba. Edited under the official direction of Leonard Wood. Printed in Havana by Rambla y Bauza

Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065

La Rosa Corzo, Gabino (translated by Mary Todd) [1988] 2003 Runaway Slave Settlements in Cuba: Resistance and Repression University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill ISBN 0807828033 ISBN 0807854794

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1896 The island of Cuba; A descriptive and historical account of the "Great Antilla." H. Holt and company, ASIN B00086NGHU

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1922 How I carried the message to Garcia W.D. Harney ASIN B00086V3FW

Rubens, Horatio S. 1932 “Liberty. The Story of Cuba” AMS Press New York, 1970 reprint of 1932 edition. SBN 404-00633-7

Smith, Earl T. 1962 (1990 edition) The fourth floor. Selous Foundation Press, Washington DC. ISBN 09442730682

Spikes, Daniel 1993 Angola and the Politics of Intervention: From Local Bush War to Chronic Crisis in Southern Africa McFarland & Company Jefferson, North Carolina and London ISBN 089950888X

Tejera, Noel; Ortega, Eduardo; Rodes, Rosa; and Lluch, Carmen 2006 Nitrogen compounds in the apoplastic sap of sugarcane stem: Some implications in the association with endophytes. J. Plant Physiology, 163 (1)80-85

Tennant, Gary 1999 Dissident Cuban communism: the case of Trotskyism, 1932-1965 PhD Thesis, University of Bradford, England . http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/central.html

Thomas, Gordon and Max Morgan Witts 1974 Voyage of the Damned Stein and Day Publishers; 1st Edition edition (1974) Stein and Day, Briarcliff Manor, New York ASIN B000BKOCGM

Hugh Thomas Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (Paperback) Da Capo Press; Updated edition (April, 1998) ISBN 0306808277

Thomas-Woodward, Tiffany (accessed 1/29/2006) Towards the gates of eternity: Celia Sánchez Manduley and the creation of Cuba’s new woman. Project Muse http://muse.jhu.edu

U.S. State Department 1950-1954. Confidential Central files Cuba 1950-1954 Internal Affairs Decimal Numbers 737, 837 and 937, Foreign Affairs decimal numbers 637 611.37 Microfilm Project University of Publications of America, Inc. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Nov-1952-July-1953.pdf http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Aug-1953-Oct-1954.pdf

Velazquez, Loreta Janeta 1876 (2003 Editor Andrews, William L.)
The Woman in Battle (The Civil War Narrative of Loreta Janeta Velazques, Cuban Woman and Confederate Soldier). University of Wisconsin Press 2003 ISBN 0299194248

Volkman, Ernest 1995 Our man in Havana. Cuban double agents 1961-1987 Castro stings the CIA in: Espionage: The Greatest Spy Operations of the Twentieth Century Wiley, New York ISBN 0471161578

Wegman ME Infant mortality: some international comparisons. Pediatrics; 98(6 Pt 1):1020-7, 1996 “Comparison of infant mortality rates (IMRs) among the world's countries requires assessment of completeness and accuracy of data. The United Nations Statistical Office classifies as [quot ]C[quot ], complete, meaning at least 90% of events are actually recorded, 1994 data supplied by 80 governments,”

Weiland, C. F. (Carl Ferdinand), (d. 1847) 1855
West Indien. Geographisches Institut (Weimar, Germany) [http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps960006-24795.html]

Zayas y Alfonso, Alfredo 1914. “Lexografía Antillana” El Siglo XX Press, Havana

Zimmerman, Robert 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

{{liberalism}}

== See also ==

*[[Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]]
*[[Bay of Pigs]]

==External links==
* [http://antifidelblogs.cubanology.com/ Anti-Fidel Blogs]
* [http://cubawatcher.blogspot.com/ Cuba Watcher]
* [http://www.castrodeathwatch.com/ Castro Death Watch]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/president-fidel-castro.htm Fidel Castro - breaking news]
* [http://17503.spreadshirt.com/junior-s-cap-sleeve-t-shirt-A1429312/customize/color/1 I bought this t-shirt before Castro died]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Castro, Fidel}}

[[Category: Communism]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Cuba]]
[[Category: Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Communist Revolutionaries]]

Fidel Castro

2013-02-24T21:34:11Z

RobertE: New details

User:CamD

2013-02-23T23:13:07Z

RobertE: Undo revision 1036146 by RobertE (talk) Hmm - may not be spam but the link doesn't work

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21562050| Keep on fighting]

User:CamD

2013-02-23T23:11:49Z

RobertE:

Wikipedia

2013-02-23T22:07:19Z

RobertE: More about the site's funding

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref> Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly young males<ref> In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]</ref> — a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.

Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref>

== Recent loss of influence ==

In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> In August of 2012, leading web traffic tracking companies indicated that Wikipedia's English version of their online encyclopedia has lost web visitors in the last 6 months.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].
__TOC__

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Hearsay==
Wikipedia has a policy that information can only be added if a reference stating it can already be found elsewhere. In other words, it relies on [[hearsay]] and discourages independent thought, the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a colossal agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Worse still, Wikipedia's ubiquity has caused this attitude to be widely adopted in some circles outside the site, creating a [[hearsay society]] where all the above problems are reproduced and magnified, to the intellectual and material detriment of all.

== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>

== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbaised editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions."

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]

User talk:RobertE

2013-02-20T22:31:19Z

RobertE: Trim

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:17, 25 May 2009 (EDT)}}

==Liverpool Article==
Would you mind expanding the history of the club? That may be what it needs to get FA status. Excellent work on what you've done so far. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:18, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
: Thank you. I'll try but I don't have a huge amount of time to work on the site and do the necessary research. I was thinking of creating a template to facilitate a better format for other teams, but although I can't find anything specific, there seems to be a convention that only administrators can create templates. Please could you enlighten me on this? [[User:Trueblue|Trueblue]] 09:44, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
::I've never heard that one before. Our greatest template creator, [[User:Iduan]], is not an admin. As for the LFC template, my idea would be to just copy the code you've already created on the page and save it under, say, "Template:LiverpoolFC" or something like that. I tried creating an all-use template where you could just change the roster, but there's not a lot of point in it (much easier to do the individual teams). [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:19, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

==Reverts==
Thanks for keeping a sharp eye--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:17, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great Idea for the debate. ==

Great idea for the debate, good work. I look forward to working with you on some UK articles, and its nice to meet someone who's against the socialist agenda so much. Where about are you from, if you don't mind me asking? (forgot to sign) [[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:15, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: I currently live in London's East End, but I'm from the north west where we managed to keep several good Conservative MPs in office even during the disaster of '97. You? [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:: I'm from Bradford/Leeds kind of area, though I lived in Manchester for two years recently. Shipley is the constituency I vote in. [[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:35, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Liverpool F.C.

2013-02-20T22:28:20Z

RobertE: /* Roster */ updated goalies; no time for rest

'''Liverpool F.C.''' is a [[British]] [[soccer]] team currently playing in the [[English Premier League]]. It is based in Anfield stadium, although is expected to relocate to Stanley Park sometime in the future. It is considered one of the Big Four of British football, along with [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]], [[Chelsea F.C.|Chelsea]], and [[Manchester United]], however, the club has become the most successful club in English league history, winning eighteen League titles as well as five European cups. The current manager is Roy Hodgson and is sponsored by Standard Chartered. The Club's most bitter rivalries are with Everton, Manchester United and Chelsea.

==History==
The club was founded in 1892 after a dispute between the owner of the Anfield Road ground, John Houlding, and the team that was the tenant, [[Everton F.C.]]. Everton built and occupied their own ground, Goodison Park, leaving Houlding with an unproductive and vacant Anfield. Houlding began Liverpool F.C. to utilise his asset. The Club's first ever manager was an Irishman, John McKenna. McKenna brought in a lot of players to the club, many of them from Scotland. Under his supervision it was promoted twice: first from the Lancaster League to the Second Division, and then to First Divisions. He also worked with Houlding to develop Anfield and expand its capacity. The club won its first League title in 1900-01.

==Roster==
{| align="center" class="toccolours" style="background:white;border:2px solid rgb(193,193,193); text-align: left;font-size:95%;" cellpadding="10px"
|-
!colspan="7" style="font-size:100%; background-color: rgb(204,0,0); text-align:center; border: 2px solid rgb(0,0,204)" | Liverpool F.C. Roster

|-
| valign="top" | '''Goalkeepers'''
*1 Brad Jones
*25 Pepe Reina
*42 Peter Gulacsi
*52 Danny Ward

'''Defenders'''
*2 Glen Johnson
*5 Daniel Agger
*12 Fabio Aurelio
*22 Emiliano Insua
*23 Jamie Carragher
*27 Philipp Degen
*32 Stephen Darby
*34 Martin Kelly
*36 Steven Irwin
*37 Martin Skrtel
*38 Andrea Dossena
*40 Daniel Sanchez Ayala
*45 Mikel San Jose Dominguez

| valign="top" |'''Midfielders'''
*4 Alberto Aquilani
*8 [[Steven Gerrard]]
*11 Albert Riera
*15 [[Yossi Benayoun]]
*17 [[Maxi Rodriguez]]
*19 Ryan Babel
*20 Javier Mascherano
*21 Lucas Leiva
*26 Jay Spearing
*28 Damien Plessis
*31 Nabil El Zhar

| valign="top" | '''Strikers'''
*9 [[Fernando Torres]]
*18 Dirk Kuyt
*24 David Ngog
*29 Krisztian Nemeth
*38 Craig Lindfield
*39 Nathan Eccleston

|-
| colspan="2" |'''Staff'''
* Roy Hodgson - Manager
* Sammy Lee - Assistant Manager
* John McMahon - Reserve Team Manager
* Mauricio Pellegrino - First-team Coach
* Dave McDonough - Technical Analyst
* Eduardo Parra Garcia - Fitness Coach
* Paco De Miguel - Fitness Coach
* Gonzalo Rodriguez - Reserve Team Fitness Coach
* Xavi Valero - Goalkeeping Coach
* Antonio Gomez Perez - Reserve Team Coach
* John Achterberg - Reserve Team Goalkeeping Coach
* Eduardo Macia - Chief Scout
* Mike McGlynn - Assistant Chief Scout
* Mark Waller - Club Doctor
* Rob Price - Senior Physiotherapist
* Chris Morgan - Physiotherapist
* Matt Konopinski - Physiotherapist
* Ivan Ortega - Sports Therapist
* Felix Fernandez Ledesma - Sports Therapist
* Paul Small - Masseur
* Graham Carter - Kit Manager
|}

==Notable Former Players==
*GK Ray Clemence
*GK Bruce Grobbelaar
*DF Alan Hansen
*DF Mark Lawrenson
*MF John Barnes
*MF Peter Beardsley
*ST Kenny Dalglish
*ST [[Michael Owen]]
*ST Ian Rush

==Honors==
'''League Champions - 18''' : 1900-01 1905-06 1921-22 1922-23 1946-47 1963-64 1965-66 1972-73 1975-76 1976-77 1978-79 1979-80 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90

'''Football Association Cup Winners - 7''' : 1964-65 1973-74 1985-86 1988-89 1991-92 2000-01 2005-06

'''League Cup Winners - 7''' : 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1994-95 2000-01 2002-03

'''Football Association Charity Shield Winners - 15''' : 1964* 1965* 1966 1974 1976 1977* 1979 1980 1982 1986* 1988 1989 1990* 2001 2006 
(* shared)

'''European Cup Winners - 5''' : 1976-77 1977-78 1980-81 1983-84 2004-05

'''UEFA Cup Winners - 3''' : 1972-73 1975-76 2000-01

'''European Super Cup Winners - 3 ''' : 1977 2001 2005

'''Super Cup Winners - 1''' : 1985-86'

{{Nb sl english premier}}
[[Category:UK soccer]]
[[Category:Premier League Teams]]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-02-11T17:36:04Z

RobertE: /* Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 */

<big><big><big>[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</big></big></big>

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of [[Hans Bethe]] on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|inoculate]]s you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
:@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown [[#Aschlafly, could you give us... |above]] that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.
:@Aschlafly: What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])? Have thousands of students falsified their results to fit the current "dogma"? Do you have another theory which makes predictions that are different from those of Einstein's theory, but which is consistent with this experiment? And could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? The energy involved is to much for a chemical reaction...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that '''your clock''' is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::*This is neither an answer to the question "''What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])?''" nor to the ''"[[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]''".
::::::*We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:
::::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightgrey"
|
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
|}
::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Thanks Andy, that's pretty clear - mass is not being converted to energy, therefore E=mc2 is nonsense. I've got two kids who are being taught this stuff at school so I can now set them straight.
::::::Regards [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 17:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)

== High School Experiment ==

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:*Aschlafly, you are a [[Andrew Schlafly|former engineer]], therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!
:*Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...
:*And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? I always try to answer your questions - and the questions in the section above aren't that demanding...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

:::One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::*Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize
::::*The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:
:::::::*Aschlafly, how do you interpret the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] ?
:::::::*Could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? You only have to follow the steps...
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: ''"Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "''
::::::::::And please, could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:15, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does ''not'' "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The ''m'' is not gravitational mass. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
===An experiment performed at high-schools===
I think that experiments on [[Compton Scattering]] are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] could be performed by high school students with proper adult supervision. It would make a great science project. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:57, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Aschlafly, you created the article on [[Compton Scattering]], but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070602221148&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly similar very short articles], all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence [[E=mc²]]!
::This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.
::Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: ''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.''
::Please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] and show us that you actually know what you are talking about.
::Thank you, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is ''inertial mass'', not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found [http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf here]. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== Source of heat in a nuclear power station ==

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[light]]. ==

I changed this sentence to ''It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. ''. My reasons:
*The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical
*The older version showed a misunderstanding of [[proportionality]]: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above ''"Mass is not a function of the speed of light."'' Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Aschlafly, before your next reversion of my edit, please address my concerns above. And you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 16 January 2013 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]])! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.
:::A little bit annoyed, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:50, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::''science is not by liberal consensus'': not an answer to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], again. Are you stalling? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:The truth, it seems, is what ''you'' define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

== Andrew Schlafly's comments ==

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:
{|class="wikitable"
!1
|Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
|-
!2
|It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!3
|Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!4
|JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!5
|The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!6
|The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!7
|The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!8
|The problem is that '''E=m2''' does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!9
|No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!10
|AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!11
|It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!12
|The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!13
|The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!14
|You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!15
|The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!16
|Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!17
|Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!18
|You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!19
|No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!20
|But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
|-
!21
|(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!22
|The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!23
|"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!24
|Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!25
|Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!26
|The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!27
|This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!28
|A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!29
|That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!30
|The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!31
|Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!32
|Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!33
|If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!34
|It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.
|-
!35
|Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
|-
!36
|The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!37
|It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!38
|We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!39
|It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!40
|No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!41
|Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!42
|Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!43
|August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!44
|The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!45
|The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!46
|Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!47
|Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|}

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in '''24''' you say ''Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations.'', while in '''27''' we read ''This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.'' and in '''42''' ''there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation. ''

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a ''mathematical theory'' other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like '''39''': ''It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. '' E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

'''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.'''

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:No, there has been no [[unified field theory]] discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an [[Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness|Open mind]], so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

::::The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you ''think'' it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "''Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared''". Indeed. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them.'' No, it isn't. If you take a look at the sections above, you will see that you generally get responses. I'm afraid we are missing substantial answers from you, like to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
:::::''Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???'' That's not what ''E=mc²'' is about, in the same way that ''A=πr²'' isn't about unifying area and π
:::::If you don't start to do actual physics, your list of answers just becomes a parade of ignorance. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:Yes. Just as a mass of 1 kg has kinetic energy of one half times its velocity squared, so it has mass energy of c2.--[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 21:40, 30 January 2013 (EST)

:No - as you messed up the units. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::The mass energy in 1 kg is <math>1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}</math> (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:36, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::: You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::::::Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of <math>9 \times 10^{16}J</math> - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits <math>3.8 \times 10^{26}W</math> this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.
::::::But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:
::::::*In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of <math>3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg </math> is transformed into an energy of <math>2,755 \times 10^{-12}J</math>
::::::*In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².
::::::This is about measurement, not politics. And please, Andrew, answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: those questions may be difficult for a lawyer, but nor for an engineer. So, I'd like the engineer in you to answer the questions, not the lawyer to give another political statement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:11, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the [[Bible]]. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the [[Bible]] earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

::Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:::*The underlying point is that '''you are not doing science but rhetorics'''. I get the impression that you are not able to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: have you forgotten everything you learned to become an engineer?
:::*''[it] does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Don't you even understand [[proportionality]]?
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::P.S.: I just created [[proportionality]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)

=== Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above ===
Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that [[E=mc²]] is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: ''drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - keep an open mind! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke, the greatest physicist of the 20th century ==

Andrew, such over-the-top statements just help to erode your credibility when it comes to physics. I understand that you won't accept [[Albert Einstein]] - the common choice - for this title. But [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Max Planck]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Lise Meitner]], [[Erwin Schrödinger]], [[Richard Feynman]] were at least his equals! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013
::If you prefer experimentalists, what's about [[Edward Teller]], [[Robert Oppenheimer]], [[Stanislaw Ulam]] or [[Enrico Fermi]]? I don't claim that any of those is the ''greatest physicist of the 20th century'', but they are not less great than [[Robert Dicke]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:24, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::You're clearly not very familiar with the way the field of physics actually works. The field is divided into theorists and experimenters. Theorists try to figure out how everything should be working, and come up with (surprise) theories about what those might be. In some cases, they take data sets created by those folks that have been experimenting and try to figure out why they contain the data they have (which is typically not the data that was expected). The fact that they don't have much in the way of experimental accomplishments doesn't really much matter because ''that isn't their job''. When they do finish a theory of something, some intrepid experimenter out there will pick it up and try to either prove or disprove that theory via experiment. This cycle continues thus pretty much perpetually. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 21:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)
::Is there any evidence anywhere (please, show me a link to an article somewhere - news, actual science, whatever - that shows that you didn't just make this up) that Dicke was denied a Noble Prize just because he didn't accept relativity? It took quite a while for physicists to come around to the idea of relativity, just as it took time for the reality of quantum mechanics to sink in. Meanwhile empirical evidence was mounting and it sort of became hard to deny after taking a look at the real data. I'm not too familiar with this Dicke figure (given that I'm an undergrad in physics, that makes me question whether he was the greatest of his century), but it may very well be that he just never had a chance to really sit down and examine the data. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 17:10, 30 January 2013 (EST)

== Nuclear Energy ==

In the interest of consistency, I have removed a section of the [[nuclear energy]] article to bring it in line with this article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:Perhaps before gutting other articles, Andrew Schlafly could try to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]. Or perhaps this one, concerning nuclear fusion and fission:
::'''An neutron <math>{}^1_0n</math> has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton <math>{}^1_1p</math> has a mass of 1.007276466 amu, an electron has a mass of 0.000548580 amu. Therefore 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons have a combined mass of 236.9589872 amu. But an atom of <math>{}^{235}_{92}U</math> - consisting of 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons has a mass of 235.0439299. Does a liberal conspiracy hide roughly 1.915 amu of any atom of this isotope?
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:14, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::I will try one last time to explain this. Suppose that blowing up an atomic bomb with 1 lb of Uranium releases x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 2 lbs of Uranium releases 2x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 3 lbs of Uranium releases 3x amount of energy. Could we then conclude that the energy released by the atomic bomb was proportional to its mass? (If we invented a new unit of measuring energy "the Wschact" where one Wschact equaled the amount of energy released by converting one kg of uranium into energy), the equation would be: E (in Wschact units) = m (mass in kg)
::: The proportionality constant would be 1 (Wschact per kg).
::: Is it possible that (for some liberal claptrap reason) we could define the metric system of energy units in a way that the proportionality constant was set equal to a number that equals the speed of light squared? But because energy is measured in Joules, we have E =mc2, where c2 converts between Wschacts and Joules.
:::Any kid would agree that if you double the size of a bomb, the explosion would be twice as powerful. So this is a very intuitive equation. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:43, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Editing the Article ==

Andrew Schlafly, I'd appreciate if you'd abstain from editing this article: you haven't answered any questions on the underlying physics and mathematics (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]), and therefore haven't shown any understanding of the subject. Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:18, 21 January 2013 (EST)

== Simple question ==

This line appears in the introduction: "... ''light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis''". So my question to Mr. Schlafly is this: does the light in this statement refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you are willing to expound on your answer, it would be appreciated. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

== This article has a number of mistakes ==

For example, light isn't the same as energy. Light contains energy but so does '''oil'''.

Also mass, acceleration and force are all connected by Newton's laws, F=ma. So,
{{cquote|Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces,}} doesn't make sense because mass and forces are connected through that equation.

I'd correct it but, unlike the spirit of a wiki, this page is uneditable. It simply gets reverted. Thanks. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 16:29, 25 January 2013 (EST)

== personal essay shouldn't be linked from encyc. article ==

This rule seems to be made up on the spot... Fact is that numerous encyclopedic articles at Conservapedia link to "personal essays": see [[Atheism]] (linking to [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]), [[Evolution]] (linking to [[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]), [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] (linking to [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]), [[Jesus Christ]] (linking to [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] and [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), [[Torah]] (linking to [[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]), etc.

So there seems to be no reason not to link to [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] - especially as the article [[E=mc²]] has many characterizations of an essay itself. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:48, 27 January 2013 (EST)
:I think you have made some very good points AugustO, but its time to move on. Accept the fact that the article will not be changing and you will have a happier time of it. Its time to let the readers decider for themselves whether they accept Mr Schlafly's unconventional approach or not. You are beginning to get repetitive and I suspect there are some admins who are out to get you. Don't give them the satisfaction. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

== Problems with the newest edit.. ==

*''The popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public.'' It's perhaps the most recognizable formula today. But I doubt that this was the result of one television series.
*''But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. '' You keep using this word (unified). I don't think that it means what you think it means. Having mass, energy and the speed of light all appearing in one single equation doesn't necessarily unify these concepts!
*''The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. '' This is your position, Andrew Schlafly. Nearly all physicists think different - even though they fail to convince you! Therefore it should be made clear that this is the position of critics of the theory...
*''Undeterred, [[liberal]] [[PBS]] insists that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].'' It's not just PBS, it's virtually all physicists. At the moment, the source is taken from PBS, I'll add other sources which will show that nearly all physicists join in the conspiracy to promote [[E=mc²]]. (like http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2008/research-digest/student-papers/einstein/einstein2019s-theory-of-relativity-implications-beyond-science)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]! And you have added nothing of physical or mathematical substance to the article on the [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]! Could you please do so? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

==Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it==
This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.

You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation [http://xkcd.com/552/ here].

You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he
#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
#criticized or refuted relativity,
#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this
are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.'' (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.

You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.

You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.

You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:
*E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.
*E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.
*Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.

Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.

The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10-25 kg. I hope you accept this.

The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10-25 kg.

The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10-27 kg.

When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10-25 kg.

These don't add up. 8.682702295×10-30 kg were lost. OK?

Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10-13 Joules.

The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×1016 meters squared per second squared.

The square root of that is 2.998×108 meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.

This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.

That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.

So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.

Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—''Spacetime Physics'' by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:It is human to become so emotionally invested in a position, that there is no room left for logic or reasoning. A strong organization has ways to handle such situations. There are always at least two viewpoints to every dispute, and it always helps to try to invest some time into trying to understand both viewpoints. I agree with SamHB that "Enough is enough." A lot of people who care about CP have spent a lot of time reading this talk page and editing the article. If we all want CP to thrive and progress, we need to work together to find a way forward. Perhaps we could draw three number out of a hat at random and then count down the alphabetical list of editors to randomly select a committee to review this page. (If number 4 was drawn, the 4th editor on the list would be selected.) Everyone could make a pitch to the Committee, they would edit the page, and we would stop talking past each other. If anyone has a better way forward, please propose one. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:47, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] - as well as the experiments at the [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html MIT in 2005] - have shown that the [[Direct proportionality|constant of proportionality]] is c². And that's what all the mathematical derivations for special cases show, too: here is a neat trick for an engineer - develop mc² as a Taylor series (using the relativistic mass) and look closely at the first terms. That wouldn't work with c3/2
:::BTW: You are always asking questions, awaiting answers - why are you not answering to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:06, 2 February 2013 (EST)

::Andy, Isaac Newton would agree that the exponent would have to be 2 if it's anything. F=ma. Energy is defined as the force times distance, so the units of energy have to be mass times distance squared over time squared. The exponent is fixed because of the definitions of energy and acceleration in classical Newtonian physics. Of course this says nothing about the magnitudes of E, m or v but it does say any other exponent violates Newton's world. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 19:52, 2 February 2013 (EST)
:::No one person has a monopoly on the truth. No one person has the definitive Bible interpretation. So far, I have not seen any Biblical basis for Andy's views on E=mc2. Nor, have I seen any scientific basis for Andy's views. While I respect Andy a great deal, he seems to have unique views on the interpretation of this equation. So, it would be best if everyone could agree to move the resolution of this issue into dispassionate hands. CP editors would feel more confident in the strength of the website's leadership, and our users would gain more trust in CP's contents. Many CP editors see no conflict between E=mc2 and their religious views. Many CP editors see a big difference between the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. Everyone knows that the exponent must be 2 in order for the units to come out right. Many, many sources say that E=mc2 is used to design atom bombs and that relativistic effects were taken into account in the design of the GPS system. The United States government even issued a postage stamp featuring the equation. Can we please resolve this in a manner that will reflect well on both CP and its leadership? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:36, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::Wschact I feel that this article is at an impasse. If Mr. Schlafly was presenting an alternative theory that was internally consistent, matched all empirical observations, and could be shown to be held by another living soul... then we could work out a compromise article that was informative to the reader. Instead this article consists of factual information that has been liberally seasoned with Andy's editorial commentary and unsubstantiated claims. This has the effect of making it read like a someone with a split-personality wrote it. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Too right everyone, this article (in fact, this whole website) is nothing more than one person's point of view. And it makes the whole website look silly [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1]. That's why I suggest moving on to a different encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia or a different conservative one. There are plenty conservative ones that are created for the sole reason that Mc. Schlafly is making this his own. I say we all abandon him. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)
::::::It may be tempting to just ignore this article from now on and accept that it will never be corrected because of Mr. Schlafly's inflexibility. But Conservapedia is not just any blog, it is supposedly an educational resource for students. It is irresponsible and shameful to present unsubstantiated opinions as scientific fact in such a forum. Let's hope/pray that Mr. Schlafly can see this from all of the constructive criticisms and comments on this talk page. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::CP is taking a [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=530196357001380&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1 serious reputational hit] from this article. Back in November [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 I edited the article to reflect both viewpoints but was reverted.] Further requests for guidance from Andy have been ignored. I pray that some home-schooled student will not rely upon this article to write a college admission essay to his or her detriment. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:20, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::Since all the editors participating in this discussion except one are in agreement, why not edit the article and revert and changes made by the dissenting voice? That's basically what's been happening to this point, except in reverse. Its tyranny by a minority and certainly does not represent either the way that a nominal democracy should work or, indeed, how the scientific method works. I take some small solace from the knowledge that the truth itself cares not what this article says and instead continues to be true regardless of Andy's opinions. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 22:19, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::You make the mistake of assuming that this is a democracy. It is a meritocracy, which means that the view with the most merit is accepted. The most meritorious user here is Andy. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::We need a way to determine "the best of the public." [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::"He who pays the piper . . ." I do sympathise with you and AugustO, but I think its time to move on. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::Sorry, not good enough. ''Merit'' is all good and well, but it isn't a substitution for ''competence''. You can earn merits in one field, and still be incompetent in another. IMO it is the right thing to try to help a otherwise meritorious person not to look like a rambling fool in an area where he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:55, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::Let's be absolutely clear here. Are you saying that Aschlafly is "incompetent", that he "look(s) like a rambling fool", and that he is "overstep(ping)" the boundaries of his knowledge? If the answers are "yes, yes, and yes", then please say what you mean directly! Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 08:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::'' Beating around the bush is a liberal trait.'' As is incivility. Yes, I'm disappointed by the current state of the article, yes, I'd say that the article is kept in its current state not because of mathematical or physical arguments, but because of the lack of those. Yes, I sometimes get crestfallen by the lack of scientific insight, but no, I wouldn't formulate my frustration the way you want me to do it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Then who exactly is "incompetent"? Who "look(s) like a rambling fool"? Who is guilty of "incivility"? Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:02, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::::::::::::::::*Again, I phrase my criticism as poignant as possible in a civil environment. After all, there should be a discussion and not a shouting match.
::::::::::::::::*''Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly?'' I don't know - perhaps you should ask a liberal? Or were you just calling me a liberal in a very indirect way? You wouldn't do something so intricate, would you?
::::::::::::::::Conclusion: Please don't stir the pot - the situation is volatile enough.
::::::::::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:40, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] ==

I made the following edit at [[Conservapedia proven wrong]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of Prognostication
!''Conservapedia'' Prediction
!Actual Result
! ''Conservapedia'''s Response
!Date of Result
|-
|March 25, 2012
|''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=next&oldid=970256 E=mc² is liberal claptrap]''
|The [[E=mc²|same page]] lists experiments which verify the formula and other pages on Conservapedia show how this formula is used in reality ([[Compton Scattering]], [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]].) Especially [[Talk:E=mc²]] shows that the statement ''E=mc² is liberal claptrap'' is a conviction only held by Andrew Schlafly, for which no mathematical or physical reason is given.
|
|
|}
This got reverted by Andrew Schlafly, stating ''an entry like this is not the place for argument - E=mc2 claim reverted''. Again, no physical or mathematical reason was given. Andrew, you have still not answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], you have not shown any understanding of the physics or mathematics involved - though you have had many opportunities to do so (see, e.g., [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]] and [[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]). For all practical purposes, you - and by extension Conservapedia - have been proven to be wrong.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 22:48, 8 February 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke ==

''For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''

Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

::So it ''is'' only your personal opinion, rooted in your belief that you are the one to know who should and should not be awarded the Nobel Prize. Yes, Robert Dicke was scooped in the experimental detection of background radiation for which Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were awarded half the prize in 1978, but unless you have at least some proof that this was related to his opinion on ''general relativity'' (not special relativity, here he agreed with Einstein), you can only say something like: ''For example, '''''some speculate''''' that [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]].''
::BTW: I personally think that it would have been apt if Robert Dicke shared the prize with Penzias and Wilson for this important test of the Big Bang model of the universe.
::And could you please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? It is nice that you address any political or historical point raised here on this talk-page, but you should answer to the physical and mathematical questions, too: those are the important ones... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:28, 10 February 2013 (EST)

== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==

Andrew Schlafly, you reverted some edits, claiming that you ''restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths''. "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" doesn't become a truth just because you are repeating it! I'll take you through some of the edits - again - and I hope that you won't make this kind of silly reversion again.

{|class="wikitable"
!Andrew Schlafly
!Rest of the World
!Comment
|-
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in any body is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|'''E=mc²''' is [[Einstein]]'s famous formula which states that energy ('''E''') of a body is equivalent to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.
|The formula is called the mass-energy-equivalence - this is reflected by the version on the right.
|-
|
|there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications
|Yes, there are: some of those can be found later in the article
|-
|For example, [[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]]
|
|Any source for this statement? No. It's a conspiracy, so the statement is true because there is no proof for it! Anyway, Robert Dicke only had problems with the '''general theory''', and not with this formula.
|-
|Simply put, '''E=mc²''' is [[liberal claptrap]].
|
|Andrew, you seem to think that this follows from the sentences above - but it doesn't. It's not even an opinion you have, it's a kind of gut-feeling.
|-
|But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.
|
|That has nothing to do with the formula.
|-
|Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]].
|At virtually all colleges and universities physicists explain how the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation, [[nuclear weapon]]s, ([[nuclear fusion]], [[nuclear fission]], and speculation about [[antimatter]]).
|That's why I added quotes from the physics department at the MIT - hardly a second-tier college. You are ignoring inconvenient facts to make a misleading statement!
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:03, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:I think the table fairly summarizes the differences. I have still yet to see any Biblical argument against E=mc2. The only controversial application of E=mc2 is in nuclear energy and atomic bombs. While the Ten Commandments teach that "Thou shall not kill" and dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused horrific suffering, most conservatives and Christians believe that the war was shortened and many lives were saved. They would say that the discovery of nuclear technology just in time was God inspired. If Germany or Russia developed the bomb before the United States, the world would be a dictatorship by now. When Einstein approach FDR about starting a Manhattan Project, FDR could have said that the idea was "liberal claptrap" and refused to devote scarce resources to building atomic bombs. Instead, he authorized a massive expedited program. Most conservatives are glad that he did, and have supported nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants ever since.

:The theory of special relativity is different from general relativity. E=mc2 is a part of special relativity but is worth its own separate article. Whatever feelings Andy (or anyone else) has about general relativity should be kept out of this article. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

::: Well you could start with [http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760 this book] by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

User talk:RobertE

2012-03-06T21:41:48Z

RobertE: /* Civility */ reply

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-15T19:59:19Z

RobertE: Comment

I'm tempted to write an essay ''Beautiful crowns made for presidents'' - this would be similarly farcical. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:09, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:John Lennon's "Imagine" advocates atheism, and while it may be wrong in doing so, shockingly, it is quite a beautiful song. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 09:06, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Did John Lennon didn't treat his girlfriends/wives and his son cruelly?[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CiGDOKXUtPlMvbNoopX1lN;jsessionid=9158CE06FE04328DD206807FA1E577BB][http://www.ahlanlive.com/john-lennon-angry-young-man--19524.html] I believe John Lennon had an ugly heart and Imagine was an ugly song which conspicuously failed to mention that atheists have been the world's biggest mass murders in history. (see: [[Atheism and mass murder]]). Now here is a collection of [[Essay: Beautiful Christian songs|Beautiful Christian songs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:06, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::I agree with Conservative here. Imagine was an atrocious song. Also, note some of the things Lennon said about Jesus.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also, please notice the title of the satire was "Beautiful <big>'''songs'''</big> written about atheism" as in more than one song. I do find it telling that no atheists could name 2 beautiful songs about atheism. [[Atheism is a religion|Atheism is an ugly religion]] with no beautiful songs and [[Essay: Great and inspiring art by atheists on atheism|no beautiful works of art.]] Plus, as [[Henny Youngman]] pointed out, atheism has no holidays. Atheism is a gloomy and [[Atheism|errant religion]] and its adherents have higher than average suicide rates (see: [[Atheism and suicide]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
You seem to be drifting off point again, Conservative. The question you raised was about beautiful songs. Here's a list for you to work through:

*Purpleshells - Saved
* Slayer – Jesus Saves
* Midge Ure - Answers To Nothing
* Metallica – Leper Messiah
* Jeff Buckley – Eternal Life
* Bad Religion – God’s Love
* Tool – Opiate
* Nine Inch Nails – Terrible Lie
* George Gershwin – It Ain’t Necessarily So
* XTC – Dear God
* John Lennon – Imagine
* Depeche Mode – Blasphemous Rumours
* Roy Zimmerman – Creation Science 101
* Tim Minchin – White Wine in the Sun
* Randy Newman – God’s Song
* REM – Losing My Religion
* Johnny Cash – Personal Jesus
* Oingo Boingo – Insanity
* Bright Eyes – Four Winds
* The Flaming Lips – Do You Realize??
* Billy Joel - Only The Good Die Young
* Red Hot Chili Peppers - Shallow Be Thy Name
* Frank Zappa - Jesus Thinks You're a Jerk
* Nine Inch Nails - Heresy
* A Perfect Circle - Judith
* The Who - Heaven and Hell
* Tom Leher - The Element Song
* Bad Religion - Atheist peace
* Monty Python - The Galaxy Song
* Ani DiFranco - What's if nobody's watching?
* Insane Clown Posse - Hallelujah
* John Lennon - God
* Austin Lounge Lizards - Jesus Loves Me (But He Can't Stand You)
* Crash Test Dummies - God shuffled His feet
* The Vaselines - Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam

--[[User:AlexJohnson|AlexJohnson]] 12:45, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

: I don't know most of those songs, but I always thought Lennon's "God" was a totally nihilist song rather than anything about atheism. It includes the line "I don't believe in Beatles", for instance. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 15:59, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Beautiful songs written about atheism

2011-10-15T19:58:03Z

RobertE: Reinstated deleted content: either provide reasons why these suggestions are not acceptable or leave them

Soccer

2011-10-02T22:32:05Z

RobertE: /* Origins */ extra detail

[[Image:2010 World Cup.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Pictured is [[Miroslav Klose]], a star Polish-born player competing for the highly ranked German team, during the 2010 World Cup]]
'''Soccer''' is a popular sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot.
In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area. The goal of the game is to kick the ball into the opposing team's goal; each goal gives that team a point and the team with the most points at the end of the 90 minute game is the winner.
Outside the USA, it is generally called "football" (Spanish: ''fútbol'').

==Origins==

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref> through what is called the "Oxford 'er'" - a system of public school slang.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_%22-er%22] Football games have been popular in [[England]] since the [[Middle Ages]], but the modern game of soccer derives from formalizations of the rules during the mid nineteenth century. The [[Football Association]] (FA) was founded in 1863 and continues to be the game's governing body within the [[UK]]. "Association Football" (later shortened to soccer) meant the version of football approved by the Football Association's rules. The rules were published at [[Cambridge University]] in 1847, as many private schools were playing each other with different rules.

==Rules of the Game==
[[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|right|thumb|300px|left|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]
The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a break known as half-time which according to the rules of the game must last less than 20 minutes. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. If a player is injured then the [[referee]] makes up that lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as [[stoppage]] or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in knockout cup games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. In some competitions, the first goal in this period (golden goal) wins the game. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a [[penalty shootout]]. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a [[grass]] (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ball is propelled into the opposition net. The side scoring the most goals is the winner. Infringements include playing the ball with any part of the body other than the feet or head; pushing or blocking an opposing player and stepping outside the playing area while the ball is in play.

Accuracy in kicking is very important to make sure that one can kick the ball around opponents, manage it in tight spaces, and make long passes to other players in better positions. Expert players have trained to kick from a variety of angles, both forward and back and to the side, and also to use their chests and heads to maneuver a high-flying ball.

==Soccer Around the World==
[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In most countries it is the most popular sport or at least among the most popular (the [[United States]] being a notable exception). Though it is often not a high-scoring game, its popularity comes from the often dramatic saves from goalkeepers and incredible shots from skilled players in attempts to score a goal. In the United States soccer was associated with communism during the Thirties, as several communist organizations used soccer in an attempt to recruit recent European immigrants to their cause.

Every four years there is an international competition known as the [[World Cup]], where countries send their best players to compete for the title of best national soccer team. Every four years in Europe there is the European Championship in June and July when the leagues finish which is a 16 team competition for members of UEFA, the European governing body. Each other continent also has a competition, such as the African Nations Cup, which is every two years in January.

Many soccer fans are extremely passionate about their favorite teams, traveling to other countries to support them. Several countries have had problems controlling over-excited fans, with the crowd sometimes spilling onto the pitch, fighting with themselves, disliked referees and even players. [[England]] once had a poor reputation from its soccer [[hooligan]]s who got into drunken fistfights with fans of other teams. This situation has largely changed, with much better behavior at English football matches and considerably increased violence in several other countries, especially [[Italy]].

In most European countries each large town will have at least one football team who play in leagues, which last August to May in most of Europe but March to October in others. Unlike most American sports, the top teams in each league go up a league to be replaced by the last teams in the league above. The top teams in the top division of each European country enter the UEFA Champions League, a league and knockout competition played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays around the season.

==Great Players==

* [[Ferenc Puskas]], a forward for [[Real Madrid]] and [[Hungary]] in the 1950s, introduced 'total football' and destroyed the old-fashioned English team of the time.
* [[Lev Yashin]] of the USSR in the 1960s is reputed to be the best-ever goalkeeper.
* [[Pele]], [[Brazil]]ian player active from 1956-1974, often considered to be the greatest soccer player to ever kick the ball.
* [[Alfredo di Stéfano]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder who played for [[Real Madrid]]. considered by Maradona to be the greatest.
* [[Bobby Moore]], captain of England in the 1966 World Cup Finals and one of the finest ever center halves.
* [[George Best]], of [[Manchester United]] and [[Northern Ireland]] in the 1960s, was possibly the best player never to have played in the World Cup Finals.
* [[Franz Beckenbauer]] played for [[West Germany]] in the 1960s and 70s. Defenders rarely gain the limelight in football but Beckenbauer's performances against the great teams of England in 1970 and Holland in 1974 were exceptional.
* [[Johann Cruyff]], captain of Holland in 1974 and 1978: why his Dutch team's brand of Total Football never won them the World Cup is an enduring mystery.
* [[Diego Maradona]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder of the 1980s, often mentioned alongside Pele as one of the greatest.
* [[Zinedine Zidane]], [[French]] player, retired shortly after the World Cup final match between France and [[Italy]] in 2006.
* [[Cristiano Ronaldo]], a [[Portuguese]] contemporary player for [[Real Madrid]].
* [[Lionel Messi]], [[Argentina]]n forward, currently plays for [[Barcelona]].

==A note on terminology==

{{football meaning}} In many other languages, a [[phonics|phonetic]] equivalent to the English word "football," such as the Portuguese word "futbol" is used to denote the sport.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-08-28T22:54:40Z

RobertE: /* Relativity and Electromagnetism */ Question

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people arount 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T01:17:26Z

RobertE: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ added William Beveridge and moved Coolidge to the right place

==Significant politicians with a real former career==

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race.<ref>Also practiced as an attorney before leaving the workforce to raise her children.</ref>
*[[William Beveridge]] - Charity worker who was introduced to government by [[Winston Churchill]] and introduced the [[Welfare State]] to the [[United Kingdom]]
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] - law practice
*[[Jimmie Davis]] - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor, <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney

=== Others ===

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T00:34:06Z

RobertE: Re-added "," - I didn't get an edit conflict. Is this facility disabled on this site?

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race.<ref>Also practiced as an attorney before leaving the workforce to raise her children.</ref>
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*[[Jimmie Davis]] - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor, <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney

== Others ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T00:32:38Z

RobertE: Well if "Jimmie Davis" is notable, why is there no article here? I've made a link so it's easy for someone to start one

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race.<ref>Also practiced as an attorney before leaving the workforce to raise her children.</ref>
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*[[Jimmie Davis]] - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney

== Others ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T00:29:14Z

RobertE: Excuse me - I moved those to the wrong section

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race.<ref>Also practiced as an attorney before leaving the workforce to raise her children.</ref>
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney

== Others ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T00:26:46Z

RobertE: Moved virtual-unknowns from top section to "further discussion" section and reordered alphabetically

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children; now is a [[conservative]] candidate in the presidential race.<ref>Also practiced as an attorney before leaving the workforce to raise her children.</ref>
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (non-ABO-certified ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of Nato.
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Nelson Mandela]] - President of South Africa, 1994-99, lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney

== Others ==

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T15:53:40Z

RobertE: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Indian Christian culture is better than low-class atheist "culture"

2011-08-13T12:20:16Z

RobertE: /* This essay is against the letter of the Gospel and the spirit of ecclesiastical history */

"Indian Christian dancers appear immune to obesity" What about Indian Hindu dancers, Indian Muslim dancers, Thai Buddhist dancers, atheist Russian ballerinas? By their very nature professional dancers are slender and follow rigorous regimes to stay in shape. Unless you're claiming that Jillette is also a professional dancer, your analogy fails. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:Also, the picture you show of the Indian Dancer - she's Hindu, not Christian. That's misrepresentation on your part.[[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Apparently, your atheistic public school education causes you not to be able to read picture captions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:05, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Atheistic public schools don't teach kids how to ''read''.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:08, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Plus, he/she is apparently engaging in speculation as there are no indications of the woman's religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:10, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::And last time I checked, ballet did not originate in Soviet Russia! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:12, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::In addition, the article declares in the first sentence: "Indian Christian culture is better than low class '''Western''' atheist "culture"." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::::Conservative, if you Google the woman's name - as you provided in the reference for the picture - you will find she is Hindu. It seems not only can I read, but I can use a search engine beginning with G. The fact remains you are using a Hindu dancer to portray a Christian dance. Ergo, you are misrepresenting facts. Of course, all you can reply with is cheap shots. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 14:19, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also, I never said where ballet originated, I spoke about ballet dancers in atheistic Russia. Where did I say where ballet originated? And regardless of what culture you said, perhaps you should read the title of your essay. But once again, you dodge the question. So I ask it again - what about slim Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist dancers - how do they fit your paradigm? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 14:23, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see you still cannot read the caption below the pic. Next, you'll be claiming that Western atheists are thinner than Hindus! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Actually I can read it. It's you who cannot comprehend it. So let me put in terms your brain can understand:
:::::::You. Article. About. Indian. Christian. Dancers.
:::::::They. Slender.
:::::::Photo. Not. Christian. Dancer.
:::::::She. Hindu.
:::::::Not. Example. Of. Christian. Dancer.
:::::::Analogy. Fail.
:::::::If you still claim that you cannot grasp that you speak about Christian Indian dancers in your article, but use a picture of a Hindu dancer to illustrate your point, then you are either lying, or making use of [[deliberate ignorance]]. And the more you deny this, with silly Babelfish comments and smilies, the more you prove me right. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:27, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::TracyS, you are a sockpuppet of RobS! I find your charge of misrepresentation to be rather humorous. It seems as though, RobS, "the greatest rule/law giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is once again breaking a Conservapedia rule! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
== There is no such thing as atheist culture ==

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. There is nothing else that atheists have in common that could encompass a "culture". There are liberal atheists and conservative atheists. Well educated atheists and uneducated atheists. Sporty atheists and non-sporty atheists. Atheists who use profanity and those who do not. In fact you could take virtually any personal characteristic and you will find atheists on either side. Lumping atheists together in any respect other than the lack of belief in a deity indicates a misapprehension as to what the term atheist means. This page is unbecoming of an encyclopedia and appears to be more of a series of insults directed at people the author happens to disagree with than anything productive. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:Methinks the gentlemen protests too much! I seem to have struck a nerve! Ah, [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|what is best in life?]] :) Another thin skinned atheist! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:45, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::No, not protesting, just pointing out that I don't think you anything about the subject matter you write about. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:07, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Foolish DamianJohn, don't you realize that any criticism of this essay must, by definition, be a result of the critic being a thin skinned atheist. The content of the criticism is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that what you said made perfect sense. You criticised the essay, ergo you are a thin skinned atheist. And that is all we need to know. QED. :) --[[User:TeddyG|TeddyG]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:19, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Obesity in India ==

Obesity in India [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-11-12/india/28245306_1_obesity-india-and-china-overweight-rates is as prevalent as in Sweden]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::What about child obesity? And what about the very religious Indian Christian believers? According to the Gallup Organization, "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."[http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:08, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This is so very wrong on every level. Your Gallop "study" doesn't say a thing about obesity or atheism, let alone child obesity, not that a poll of Americans about healthy behaviors has anything to do with obesity in India. And you've been shown real studies, rather than polls of self-reported behavior, that show the very religious are more likely to be obese than the less religious. You've also been shown maps showing the shocking overlap of the incidence of obesity with prevalence of fundamentalist and evangelical religious - the American Bible Belt is the fattest region in the country. You ignore and misrepresent this evidence. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:35, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::You can expect an answer in Hindi, followed by a smilie, shortly. That's the character of the "man" you are debating. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:47, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Nate, the Roman Catholic country of Mexico has the second highest obesity rate in the world.[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity] I cited other data for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, the Bible belt has a number of important demographic/cultural variables not just religion. Fourth, there are more Protestant Christians in the thin Eastern World than in the West. Lastly, in relation to Roman Catholicism, when you type "friar" into search engines some of the top suggestions are "friars table" and "Friar Tuck" which are commonly not associated with slimness. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:18, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The overwhelmingly protestant country of the United States has the first highest obesity rate in the world. You didn't cite any data in support of the proposition that atheists are more likely to be obese. The only data you cited related to the effects of obesity, which is irrelevant to which population is affected by obesity most. Please just admit this and move on. The Bible Belt, which is overwhelmingly protestant, is nonetheless the fattest region in the nation. The correlation is very clear. Causation is not. Studies of the nature I'm referring to state they don't provide insight into causation so I'm not interested in hearing your off the cuff speculations about why the Bible Belt is obese but somehow the clear correlation doesn't matter. All we can talk about is correlation, not causation. I hope you don't deny that. As to there being more protestants in the "thin Eastern World" than in the West, a) you're wrong, and b) so what? The population of India is 1,200,000,000 people in 2011 with 2.3% Christian - that's 27,600,000 people. The population of the United States alone is 311,000,000 with 51% protestant - that's 158,610,000 people. 5.75 times more protestants than in India. Just as you don't know anything about causal factors for obesity in the United States you don't know anything about causal factors for whatever you're calling thinness in the "thin Eastern World" other than what you're going to make up. Just as you're pretending it has to do with their religion, I can say that the correlation between poverty in Central Africa and South Asia is a better example of "thinness" that I would call malnourishment. 40% of people in South Asia and 51% of people in sub Saharan Africa live on less than $1.25 a day. only 2.1% of hungry people live in developed countries. Even if you're right that it is possible to determine a causal relation between religion and thinness, the example of India is a striking opposite of the United States. The US is 51% protestant (25% Catholic) and states in the protestant Bible Belt are all over 30% obese. India is 2% Christian and men are 18% obese and women are 14% obese. So even if you're right you can't draw any good conclusion from numbers like this. And I'm telling you smearing Catholics by pretending Catholicism provides a causal factor in obesity is yet another slander against the Church. Typing "friar" into google doesn't do or mean anything. Just stop it with the anti-Catholic slurs please. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:03, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::Nate, Brazil has the largest Roman Catholic population in the world and nearly half of Brazilians are overweight the trend for obesity is upwards.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/8204625/Brazils-obesity-rate-could-match-US-by-2022.html] It seems as though there are a lot of very big girls from Ipanema at the present time. :) Secondly, there are a number of demographic factors in Protestantism in the United States. For example, I would think income/education play important factors in terms of obesity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:09, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Nate, in addition, the Bible has a anti-gluttony/obesity message. In 2001, American Protestants read their Bibles a LOT more than American Roman Catholics.[http://www.bibleteachingnotes.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=29183&fetch=7872] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::How in the world can you claim protestants read their Bibles more than Catholics? That kind of statement requires backup. Nothing else you've said is worth responding to since you can't point to anything supporting the causal relation your implying. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you have shown yourself to be quite impervious to evidence when you choose to be so I didn't expect you to read the link. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I actually didn't see the link. You're correct that the Barna page says Catholics read the Bible less. Sorry about that. No need to get personal. Sheesh. You seem to assume bad faith of anyone who challenges the falsities you keep stating. Nonetheless I've shown the premise of your "essay" to be completely flawed. You should acknowledge that and fix it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So the point you seem to be making from your points at the top of this section are that atheists are obese because they're atheists, Protestant people in the Bible Belt are obese because of their environment, and Catholics are obese because they're not Protestant. And you typed that with a straight face? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 15:13, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

===This is all very interesting, but...===
The fact remians obesity is as problematic in Sweden as it is in India so Conservatives point about obesity in Sweden as compared to India is moot. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:47, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You haven't shown that. Give me childhood obesity rates in India. Furthermore, Indian Americans don't have the sewer mouths that American atheists have. Go to PZ Myers blog, etc. Richard Dawkins had to shut down his forum as it was making him a bigger embarrassment than he already is due to the behavior of atheists on his forum. Face it. A whole lot of Western atheists are like unemployed teachers. They have no class and no principals! Atheist "culture" is trashy, uncouthe and foolish. Wired magazine said atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males. See: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] 06:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::a) You were the first to bring up child obesity rates, so the onus is on you to provide the figures. However, since you asked:
::::*[http://www.obesitysurgeryindia.org/childood_obesity.html "Childhood obesity affects more than 30 percent of children in India, making it the most common chronic disease of childhood."]
::::*[http://www.bolohealth.com/news/3009-childhood-obesity-a-rising-health-problem-in-india A recent survey conducted among urban kids reveals that obesity has set in much before adolescence among children in India. The study, found that 25 percent of the children above 8 years of age and 19 percent children in the age group of 7 years and below were obese. ]
::::*[http://www.obesitydiscussion.com/forums/childhood-obesity-statistics/obesity-is-hurting-indias-children-2767.html Obesity is hurting India's children]
::::*[http://www.ezinemart.com/article/215-articles-Childhood-obesity-in-india--The-self-inflicted-epidemic.html Childhood obesity India: the self-infliced epidemic]
::::*[http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/article1023015.ece "in the last 10 years, there has been a 45 per cent increase in the incidence of childhood obesity (in India)."]
::::*[http://www.worlddiabetesfoundation.org/media%287019,1033%29/Review_Article_APJCN.pdf Childhood obesity in Asian Indians]
::::So, that's answered your question.
::::Also b) "Indian Americans don't have the sewer mouths that American atheists have" - to use your own phrase "You haven't shown that." If you're going to make such sweeping generalisations, at least have something to back them up. In addition, you seem to be heading off topic, perhaps realising that you're losing this discussion. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:40, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html] Dawkins ended his forum because evidently none of the finishing schools were willing to teach atheists basic manners because they thought it was a impossible task. PZ Myers wrote: "I said "both sides," but there are actually three sides: me, the hosting organization, and you the readers. How would you react if, for instance, profanity filters went up on the comments? Right now, it's a real free-for-all in the comments, but I do clean up spam, ban certain elements that have demonstrated their trollishness, and will occasionally swoop in and erase comments that reveal personal information or contain nothing but bigoted raving." [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/changes_one_way_or_another.php] The [[Barna Group]] found regarding [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: [[Illegal drugs|illegal drug use]]; excessive drinking; [[fornication|sexual relationships outside of marriage]]; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; [[Profanity|obscene language]]; [[gambling]]; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] And of course, we all know that YouTube's Theamazingatheist and Penn Jillette have trashy sewer mouths plus have weight issues making them doubly repugnant to more refined and sophisticated elements of society. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Yes? And where do Indian Americans factor into that? All you've shown me is that atheists are foul mouthed. The rest is unfounded speculation on your part. You should withdraw the comment.
::::::::::But let's get back to obesity. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:17, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::"[http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-most-polite-society-US-actor/Article1-42494.aspx India most polite society: US actor][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:35, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Although it seems their politeness could have unusual roots: "I don't know if it's dealing with the British influence and the properness, but I think some of their customs should be practised everywhere." Also, I'm not sure if actors are a reliable source. However, this doesn't address the problem of obesity in India. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:41, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also India is not equal to the "Indian Americans" you used in your analogy. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Unlike PZ Myers and Penn Jillette, there are no reliable testimonies of Jesus, Moses, Elijah and the Apostle ever being fat. Hopefully, fervent biblical Christianity will sweep across India and they will largely solve their obesity problem. The effects of the Welsh revival were profound upon Welsh society.[http://www.welshrevival.com/] For example, "Men whose language had been filthy before learnt to talk purely. It is related that not only did the colliers put in a better day's work, but also that the pit ponies turned disobedient! The ponies were so used to being cursed and sworn at that they just didn't understand when orders were given in kind, clean words! The dark tunnels underground in the mines echoed with the sounds of prayer and hymns, instead of oaths and nasty jokes and gossip" [http://www.welshrevival.com/] Also, "The effects of the revival were awesome. There was a dramatic decline in drunkenness and bars were deserted each night while the churches were packed with worshippers. Dance halls, theaters and football games also saw a dramatic decline in attendance as a result of the revival meetings. '''The courts and jails were deserted and many policemen found themselves without work'''."[http://sureword.faithweb.com/welshrevival.html] Of course, given the foolishness and impotence of atheism, there has never been an atheist revival. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:55, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's fair to say that there's also no reliable testimonies that they weren't fat. Also, the second half of your post makes no sense in the context of this discussion. We've gone from Indians, to Indian Americans, to Welshmen. How exactly is this relevant? Or is this just more deflection on your part?
::There is also no reliable first-hand testimony of any of those people existing.:) [[User:JayGonzo|JayGonzo]] 13:24, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:You raised the issue of child obesity in India. That has been answered. Do you agree that based on your own claims about obesity, this shoots your theory about "genteel Indian culture" in the foot? Yes or no. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:16, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::What about the terrible rate of poverty and hunger in India and that the Christian population is so utterly tiny. I don't see "Conservative" able to answer anything on the merits or appropriately change his "essays" when they're shown to be premised on falsehoods, but that doesn't stop him from putting in lots of smiley faces when he knows he's being offensive. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:15, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|250px|According to a study by the [[Barna Group]] regarding charitable giving:"The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]]."[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians] ]]
::::There is poverty in India and the country is making forward progress. On the other hand, atheistic "cultures" in history have been responsible for a tremendous amount of mass murder, see: [[Atheism and mass murder]]. More importantly, the essay is on Indian Christian culture and Christians [[Atheism and uncharitableness|have a reputation for giving to the poor]]. On the other hand, there is the issue of [[Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are all the over the place conservative - the facts you asked for have been provided yet you completely ignore it and babble about something else. The fact remains that India is no more or less prone to obesity and the references for this have been provided. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The article is about Indian Christian culture vs. Western atheism "culture", There have been no obesity statistics given for Bible believing Christian Indians if you want precision on Indian Christians vs. Swedish atheists. Overall, India does stack up better than many Western nations though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:47, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::In addition, it appears as though the [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist community which has a major nerd infestation]] has not developed atheist dance music whereas Indian Christians have dance/music proving once again Indian Christian culture is superior to Western atheist "culture". :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:02, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You use Swedish obesity stats to make a point about western "atheist culture" when India has the exact same obesity problem. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:09, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::The uncouthe swearing, the [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist community suffering a major nerd infestation]] and the lack of atheist dance music gives Indian Christian culture a hands down major victory over atheist "culture". I hope this does not cause you to become even more depressed (see: [[Atheism and depression]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I am not an atheist and we are talking about ''obesity'' not swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:26, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Ok, let's break this down bit by bit:
:'''Conservative: '''There have been no obesity statistics given for Bible believing Christian Indians if you want precision on Indian Christians vs. Swedish atheists.'''
:Ok, but you have provided no statistics on Indian Christians (that's about 2% of the total population by the way), outside of 3 Youtube videos. All you do is make vague assertions with nothing to back them up. For that matter, where are your statistics on Swedish atheists?
:'''Conservative:'''Overall, India does stack up better than many Western nations though.'''
:On what basis? What Western nations have a caste system, Untouchables, child brides and arranged marriages, deliberate mutilation of children so they can beg, honor killings? Just what part of India stacks up against Western civilisation? I'm still waiting to hear your answer on that.
:'''Conservative:''' In addition, it appears as though the atheist community which has a major nerd infestation has not developed atheist dance music whereas Indian Christians have dance/music proving once again Indian Christian culture is superior.'''
:This is bizarre. How much "Indian Christian" dance music is there? And how exactly does that stack up against the multitude of Hindu dance songs out there? In addition, who on Earth is writing all the songs on the Billboard 100? Indian Christians? And as for Swedish atheists not writing dance music - I give you ABBA. One of the most successful dance groups ever. Do you seriously assert that atheists have no music? I ask you again - what is playing on the radio these days?
:'''Conservative:''' other stuff about the Welsh, charity, swearing, mass-murders.
:All of this is deflection. You have made an assertion that Indian culture (based on a flawed premise by yourself on 2% of the population) is better than Western culture. It is not, as much as you'd like it to. If it is, go and live in India and see how well you fare, compared to your current first world surroundings. And if you really think they're all sweetness and light and "namaste" - look up the Black Hole of Calcutta.
:It'll be interesting to see what new, irrelevant point you bring up, instead of simply admitting you've made a mistake in your assumptions. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:08, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Clarification: By atheist dance music I meant "atheism dance music". Music about atheism which is dance music in terms of its classification. :) I am not aware of ABBA composing "atheism dance music". :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Explain again why atheists would need to make music about atheism? You seem to live under the misapprehension that people who don't believe in God walk around going "I'm an atheist! Must burn a church! Must abort a baby!" all day. Here's a newsflash - they don't. In fact they don't even think along those lines. They certainly don't structure their lives around listening to "atheism dance music." This is really one of your weirder dodging of the issues. Now, you still haven't explained why you're using a Hindu dancer as an illustration for Christian dancers. Finally, you think male ballet dancers lack machismo? I challenge you to go to a dance studio and attempt one session at the bar. Just one. After all, it can't be that hard for somebody with as much machismo as you. I bet you $500 that you will not last 10 minutes in a full ballet workout.
:::::Besides, I would have thought that all music that doesn't meet Christian norms would be "atheistic". ABBA certainly did not sing about Christian morals, ergo their music must have been atheistic. Also "atheism dance music" is horrendous English. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== This essay is against the letter of the Gospel and the spirit of ecclesiastical history ==

I am surprised to see this essay equating slimness with godliness. For wasn't Thomas Aquinas, a saint and arguably the most important Christian of the second millennium (him or St Francis I would imagine), so corpulent that he was nicknamed "the ox of God"? Additionally, why not pay some heed to Matthew 15:11 - it isn't what you eat that makes you a good or a bad person, it's your actions. Judging someone immoral, or even ridiculing them, because you perceive them to be obese, would seem to go directly against Christ's teaching on this point.

If this Mr Gillette is such a bad man (I haven't really heard of him) then by all means highlight or even "satirise" his actions, but the Christian thing to do, in my view, is to leave his appearance alone.

Or if you must cloud the "debate" by dragging in superficial irrelevancies, at the very least, to post a photo or drawing of yourself so that observers are able to make equivalent judgements of you would seem fair.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Gluttony is a sin according to the Bible. It indicates so in several Bible verses. Nothing is going to overrule this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::::The article says that there are no reliable testimonies of various Biblical figures, including Jesus, being fat. Well, no, not specifically. It's rare for the Bible to describe anyone's appearance, unless it has a bearing on the story as with Goliath or Samson. But see Luke 7:34 - Jesus himself was accused of being a glutton, because he enjoyed his food, and he didn't deny it. He preferred to say that it doesn't matter whether you choose to eat heartily, like him, or meanly, like John the Baptist. "Wisdom is proved right by all her children."
::::That's to add to the previous example of St Thomas Aquinas. And actually, I don't believe the Bible does expressly say that gluttony is a sin. The idea of the seven deadly sins was a medieval extrapolation from Aristotle, ''not'' the Bible, and was largely pioneered by Thomas Aquinas himself, aptly enough.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:50, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jesus's detractors can hardly be considered reliable witnesses. I find it hard to believe that an "traveling preacher" was overweight. Jesus's detractors also said He has a demon by the way. There are multiple verses of the Bible saying gluttony is a sin and nothing is going to change that. Philipians 3:18-21: "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:00, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Obviously if you overindulge to the point of making your belly your God, you are sinning. It's a form of idolatry, just like obsessing over money or power or anything to an unhealthy degree. But this Penn Gillette doesn't seem to be doing that - he seems to have plenty of interests outside eating. His God isn't his belly. I'd say that the Bible advises against gluttony, but I wouldn't say it said it was definitively a sin.
:::::::Does Jesus ever condemn enjoyment of food? He performed his first miracle at a feast, he told parables where people celebrate by feasting (eg prodigal son), he miraculously fed thousands of people at a time, and he even made communal eating the basis of the Eucharist, which is central to the Christian faith. He was not an ascetic.
:::::::Overweight or not (and probably not), the fact that Jesus was able to shrug off accusations of gluttony without particularly addressing them shows that He didn't consider it a serious accusation. Compare the treatment he gave accusations of not honouring the Sabbath, for example.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Conservative, there's a difference between gluttony and being overweight. The former is defined as excessive eating and drinking, and obesity doesn't need to result from that. CPalmer makes the point very well. These "essays" are un-Christian in the extreme. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 08:20, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Lets avoid referring to other users as "losers". [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, you are so clueless it makes me want to break something. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 07:22, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You want to break something? You sound like a London hooligan. 10:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-12T18:31:10Z

RobertE: /* Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above */ no

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive2|Archive 2]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming. By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

Yes votes:

Y. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No votes:

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-11T21:31:59Z

RobertE: /* a perspective from a pianist */ my thoughts

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:37:05Z

RobertE: /* Confusion */ typos

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==

By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:36:35Z

RobertE: /* Confusion */ new section

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==

By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walese are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michelle Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:32:32Z

RobertE: /* Duke of Wellington */

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:29:15Z

RobertE: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ Vladimir Putin

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:24:02Z

RobertE: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ Chris Huhne

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:19:55Z

RobertE: Oops - seems like you deleted one when you moved another

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of [[Great Britain]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect for the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - attorney.
*[[Denis Healey]] - UK Chancellor, soldier (beach-master at Anzio)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Truck driver, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union and arguably the single most influential politician anywhere in the 20th century; previously a lawyer specialising in land ownership.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]

== Obscure or otherwise inept [[Brits]] ==

*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:18:30Z

RobertE: /* Duke of Wellington */ Reply

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain the the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:14:02Z

RobertE: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ Glenda Jackson

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Extremely important in UK domestic policy, especially improving conditions of working class; as Chancellor and then PM, stabilised UK economy and increased arms production to prepare for war with Hitler.
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of [[Great Britain]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect for the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - industrial chemist.
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - attorney.
*[[Denis Healey]] - UK Chancellor, soldier (beach-master at Anzio)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Truck driver, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union and arguably the single most influential politician anywhere in the 20th century; previously a lawyer specialising in land ownership.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]

== Obscure or otherwise inept [[Brits]] ==

*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T23:11:17Z

RobertE: /* Significant politicians with a real former career */ Lech Walesa

==Significant politicians with a real former career==
This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Extremely important in UK domestic policy, especially improving conditions of working class; as Chancellor and then PM, stabilised UK economy and increased arms production to prepare for war with Hitler.
*[[Winston Churchill]] - accomplished writer, then Prime Minister of [[Great Britain]] before it became [[atheistic]]
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect for the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - industrial chemist.
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.
*[[Lech Walesa]] - Electrician and [[Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). His chief claim to fame is how he trusted [[Hitler]], who played Chamberlain for the fool that he was.
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - attorney.
*[[Denis Healey]] - UK Chancellor, soldier (beach-master at Anzio)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Truck driver, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Mitt Romney]] - CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - possibly the most appalling of all the leading Nazi politicians because he planned the Final Solution; previously a naval officer.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union and arguably the single most influential politician anywhere in the 20th century; previously a lawyer specialising in land ownership.
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]

== Obscure or otherwise inept [[Brits]] ==

*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister, bank executive
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:4th international

2011-08-07T01:09:55Z

RobertE: Correction - I was looking at an earlier revision, but my point stands!

Should the title of this page be capitalized to ''International''? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:03, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

: While we're on the topic, and I admit that I know know nothing about this subject, shouldn't it be "Fourth" rather than "4th"? Addiotionally, the article is only three sentences, one of which seem to be in opposition to the other two. What is the point being made here? [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 21:08, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:4th international

2011-08-07T01:08:56Z

RobertE:

Should the title of this page be capitalized to ''International''? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:03, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

: While we're on the topic, and I admit that I know know nothing about this subject, shouldn't it be "Fourth" rather than "4th"? Addiotionally, the article is only two sentences, both of which seem to be in opposition to each other. What is the point being made here? [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 21:08, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:RobertE

2010-03-30T23:19:33Z

RobertE: /* Great Idea for the debate. */

Talk:United Kingdom Independence Party

2010-03-30T23:08:54Z

RobertE: /* Removal of BNP link */ thank you TK

== Bob Spink ==

Bob Spink is no longer a UKIP MP, having been redesignated as an [[Independent]] on November 24th, 2008, and thus has been removed from the article. My source is [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/bob_spink/castle_point This page] about Mr Spink's activities as an MP. --[[User:Ozoo|Ozoo]] 16:33, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

== Removal of BNP link ==
I've removed the link to the BNP, because I don't think it's fair at all. UKIP are a true conservative party, their policies and beliefs are MUCH closer to the beliefs listed on [[conservative]] here. They aren't racists. But the BNP are a racist party. Their leaders have had multiple convictions. The BNP believes in throwing black people out of Britain. I really feel that linking BNP and UKIP marginalises the BNP.

[[User:Newton|Newton]] 18:06, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: Yes the BNP are racist, but UKIP are not '''truly''' Conservative - they support the [[Socialist]] NHS (http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1502-health-ukip-policy) [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:21, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::True - but I don't think anybody would stand in the UK and openly say they're against the NHS. It'd be political suicide. I personally feel UKIP are closer to Thatcher's Conservatives than Cameron's Conservatives are now. Do you agree that linking them with the BNP isn't fair? [[User:Newton|Newton]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Yes indeed, which is why I didn't dispute that part of the edit. Yet we both agree there is a long way to go before any party in the UK is truly Conservative, I think? I still hold out hope for the Tories and can't help but think UKIP will be naught but a boost to the Labour party. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:27, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::Yeah. I still hold out hope for the Tories, but I really believe that Cameron's a bad move for them. I think William Hague should have taken another go, and we could have stuck with it. My local MP, Philip Davies, was one of the few to vote against the Climate Change bill, which I'm pretty happy with, so he'll be getting my vote. [[User:Newton|Newton]] 18:36, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::My own constituency, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/236.stm Eltham], might just flip if we're lucky. I agree that the UKIP is probably closer to Conservative values than the Conservative Party is, but I also believe that the only effect UKIP will have is to allow Labour to win another term. Do you think Mr Schlafly might agree to us starting a debate page on the subject? [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:46, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Feel free to create a debate:______ page if you want! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:53, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: God Bless, TK. I have created [[Debate:How Should a Conservative Vote in the UK 2010 General Election]] as a start point for the debate. I know stubs are generally frowned upon but I hope this one will be allowed for now so that it can act as a focus for further debate. I will fill in more detail tomorrow - it's after midnight here! [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:08, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Debate:How Should a Conservative Vote in the UK 2010 General Election

2010-03-30T23:07:12Z

RobertE: Stub for now to start the debate. I will fill in specific policies from parties tomorrow unless others do so first

The next '''General Election''' of the United Kingdom parliament must take place on or before June 3, 2010.

Although the debate in the mainstream media of the UK centres around the three main parties (the [[Conservative Party|Conservatives]], [[Labour Party|Labour]] and the [[Liberal Democrats]]), there are other parties that might give a better and more [[Conservative]] set of policies, although nobody would claim that any UK party is a truly Conservative party.

Talk:United Kingdom Independence Party

2010-03-30T22:46:14Z

RobertE: /* Removal of BNP link */

Talk:United Kingdom Independence Party

2010-03-30T22:27:07Z

RobertE: /* Removal of BNP link */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-03-30T22:24:26Z

RobertE: /* Curavture of Space */ new section

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Curavture of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:United Kingdom Independence Party

2010-03-30T22:21:10Z

RobertE: Moved new section to the end and replied

Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections

2010-03-29T15:57:28Z

RobertE: Added references section to stop an error appearing

I would like to argue that liberals (and specifically advocates of socialism) cannot lose the upcoming General Election in the United Kingdom, and to discuss what it would mean if any of the parties win.

The Conservative Party formed the government of the United Kingdom for over two-thirds of the 20th century.<ref>http://www.thuto.org/ubh/ub/courses/his435/uk20c01.htm</ref> [[Margaret Thatcher]] was a true conservative who was very, very similar in policy to [[Ronald Reagan]]. She once famously said that, "My job is to stop Britain going red." After years of irresponsible spending under the previous socialist government, Thatcher managed to significantly cut the deficit. But the previous government had been able to provide a level of services and welfare beyonds Britain's means. We were simply living beyond our means. Thatcher had to choose between the popular but irresponsible thing - spending on credit - and the responsible but unpopular thing - cutting spending to cut the deficit.

She was very successful, but due to very poor treatment in the media and visible cuts in spending, Thatcher was demonised. The British people didn't realise she'd done the right thing for them - they only saw the cuts. A good example of this is the tale of "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher." This was a nickname given to her. The media told people (and most people to this day believe) that Thatcher decided school children shouldn't just be given free milk, and so she stopped it. The truth of the matter is far different: As Education Secretary, before being Prime Minister, Thatcher realised that more was being spent on milk than on books from the education budget. Without the budget being changed, Thatcher cut milk from all but the poorest of children and spent the money on books and facilities for schools. This was obviously a positive, pro-education step. But the media portrayed her as a cutter who didn't care for the poor. Another example is the quote, "There is no such thing as society." This was taken wildly out of context and used to say that Thatcher didn't believe in society. After saying this, however, she explained what she meant. She meant that society isn't a structure in itself, that others can expect things from. She meant that society is made up of hard-working and not-so-hard working people.

After Thatcher, [[John Major]] was able to maintain a Conservative government for nearly seven years. He was bitterly unpopular throughout this time, however the Opposition was seen as being disorganised and incapable of governing. This all changed when [[Tony Blair]] dropped the most left-wing policies of the Labour party and won a landslide victory in 1997. The Conservative party has contested elections under William Hague, Michael Howard and Ian Duncan Smith. They were all true conservatives. Particularly William Hague, who still represents the strongest and most respected truly conservative figure in Parliament.

Unfortunatley, they failed in these elections. Labour continued in power. In 2005, after the unpopular Iraq war, people expected the Conservatives to win, but even then they didn't. [[David Cameron]] became the leader of the Conservative Party, and he changed the party's politices a lot. David Cameron supports "A woman's right to choose" and simply wants to change the law so that abortion can be permitted after 20 weeks, not 24.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7262835.stm</ref> He supports various welfare programmes which can only be described as socialist. He is basically a socialist, although not as socialist as the Labour Party.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/4450380/Camerons-moral-capitalism-is-no-better-than-socialism.html</ref>

And here in lies the rub: If after 13 years out of power, despite having been the most popular party throughout the 20th century, and after three respected conservatives have tried and failed to take back power... then if the conservatives take power back only when they choose a mild socialist as their leader, then will they ever go back to not believing in socialism? If they can only win after aligning themselves with policies such as SureStart and significant increases in socialised healthcare spending.... then they will never go back to the policies which kept them out of power for so long: the policies of true conservatism.

'''He may call it "moral capitalism," but it is socialism by any other name.'''

And so, I present to you my case:

In the 2010 General Election, either a self-identifying liberal party will win the election, or the most right-wing of the parties will win. In doing so, this most ring-wing party will irreversably be stepping back on its heritage and effectively become a liberal party. They may not get into power, but the liberals can only win this election.

I am scared of what will become of our once great nation.

== A quote to make you think ==
Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree. Our attitude to devolution and localisation of power. Iraq. The environment. I'm a liberal Conservative.
(N.B. In the UK, Conservative with a capital generally refers to the party, conservative to the political position.)

==References==
<references/>

Supreme Court Candidates, 2010

2010-03-27T15:16:36Z

RobertE: Added data on Kagan

Justice John Paul Stevens is expected to announce his resignation in the spring of 2010, creating an election year vacancy.

Here are leading contenders to be nominated to fill his seat, with an analysis of each.

== Elena Kagan ==

Elena Kagan is currently [[Solicitor General]] of the United States, confirmed in 2009 by a vote of 61-31 <ref>[http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00107 On the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan, of Massachusetts, to be Solicitor General)], United States Senate</ref>.

== Diane Wood ==

Diane Wood is a judge on the [[Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]].

== Merrick Garland ==

Merrick Garland is a judge on the [[Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:politics]]

Liberal Democrats

2010-03-18T18:46:32Z

RobertE: Added a note on their funding by a criminal

The '''Liberal Democrats''', often known as the "'''Lib Dems'''", are a political party in the [[United Kingdom]]. They have traditionally occupied the center of the political spectrum, between the [[Labour Party]] on the left and the [[Conservative Party]] on the right ("liberal" in British political parlance means "centrist" or "moderate" rather than "left-wing", as it does in the United States). At the present time, the party is seen as being moderately left-leaning.

The Liberal Democrats' current leader is [[Nick Clegg]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7148179.stm Clegg nicks it</ref>

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger between the centrist [[British Liberal Party]] and the moderately left-wing [[Social Democratic Party]], which had split off from the Labour Party in the early 1980s when the latter became too strongly socialist. The Liberal Party was one of the oldest political parties in the world, tracing its roots back to the [[Whigs]] of the era of [[William of Orange]].

== History ==
Since its foundation, the party has steadily increased its presence in the [[House of Commons]] at each successive election. The party won 62 seats in the 2005 general election<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/ Election 2005</ref> - the most that the party or its predecessors had won since the election of 1923.

== Policies ==
Their policies can be broadly described as social-democratic, with a libertarian bent. They are in favor of legalization and government regulation of marijuana, and decriminalizing the possession (but not supply) of other illegal recreational drugs, believing that medical treatment for drug addicts is more helpful than prosecution or imprisonment. They also argue for a rationalization of the currently confused status of the various components of the [[United Kingdom]], such as simplifying the benefits system for disabled people<ref name="policies">http://www.libdems.org.uk/what_we_stand_for.aspx Liberal Democrat policies</ref>.

They support laws against discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion and sexuality.<ref>http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/11CivilLiberties.pdf Protecting Civil Liberties</ref> The party traditionally advocated higher spending funded from higher taxes, but from 2007 onwards have advocated replacing or cutting some taxes, particularly Council Tax, which takes a higher proportion from the poor than the rich.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3130988.stm Lib Dems vote to axe council tax</ref> They opposed the [[Iraq War]], but were in favour of the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. They are the most pro-European Union party in [[British politics]], and support an amnesty for illegal migrants that have lived in the UK for a decade without a criminal record,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/nlibdem718.xml Lib Dems want amnesty for illegal immigrants</ref> however, they wish to tighten control on immigration, especially illegal immigration, through reforms of immigration law and the creation of an integrated border police force, returning the UK to a policy of entry and exit controls, to monitor movement in and out of the UK<ref name="policies"/>. Lib Dems, like most other parties in the UK, want the UK and the EU to take the lead in combating [[Global Warming]]. The Lib Dems want to stop global temperatures rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above the 1990 average, by making the UK a zero-carbon economy by 2050, and having more efficient buildings and transport.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/29/uk.greenpolitics Lib Dems see zero-carbon Britain setting the global green agenda</ref>

The most realistic chance of power for the party is to be part of a coalition government in a hung parliament, and they always state their terms for such an event at General elections. This has always included introducing [[proportional representation]] for elections, and their terms for the 2009/10 election include: to reform government by capping private donations, reducing the number of MPs, having a 100% elected [[House of Lords]] (it is currently made of bishops, party appointees, and hereditary peers), and having a written [[constitution]] and a [[Bill of Rights]], as current UK constitutional law is confusingly spread out over parts of several legal documents.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/10/liberaldemocrats.nickclegg Clegg's terms for deal in hung parliament</ref>

==Funding==
The party is poorly funded in comparison to its main rivals, leading to them accepting money from almost any source.

Their largest ever donor is convicted fraudster Michael Brown<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4424450.ece Arrest warrant issued after Liberal Democrat donor Michael Brown skips bail], TimesOnline, July 30, 2008</ref>, a former bonds dealer who was convicted of stealing £30 million from his clients, who donated £2.4 million to the party.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5252726.ece Lib Dems face repaying £2.4m after Michael Brown, party's biggest donor, convicted], TimeOnline, November 29, 2008</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7754234.stm Top Lib Dem donor stole millions], BBC, November 28 2008</ref>. They managed to avoid repaying the money after exploiting a technicality in the rules after a year long battle. <ref>[http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/donations-by-5th-avenue-partners-limited-to-the-liberal-democrats-statementreindex1 Donations by 5th Avenue Partners Limited to the Liberal Democrats: statement], November 20, 2009</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Link==
* [http://www.libdems.org.uk/ Official Liberal Democrats website]

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:British Politics]]

Talk:Liberal Democrats

2010-03-18T18:34:34Z

RobertE: /* Undo Explanation */

==Undo Explanation==
The previous version had several inaccuracies. Most glaring was the claim that all British political parties want the EU to take the lead on Global Warming. The UK Independence Party (for one) would take exception to that! [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:22, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks Robert and Marianne...perhaps we could keep the accurate information but without trying to rationalize their meaning? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

:: Absolutely. The Liberal Democrats are a nasty bunch, even worse because of the "nice" image they have striven to convey over the years. I will try to find examples of some of their unsavoury practices to add. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:34, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal Democrats

2010-03-18T18:22:23Z

RobertE: Created page with '==Undo Explanation== The previous version had several inaccuracies. Most glaring was the claim that all British political parties want the EU to take the lead on Global Warming. …'

Liberal Democrats

2010-03-18T18:19:54Z

RobertE: Undo revision 763071 by TK (Talk) - that reversion re-introduced multiple inaccuracies to the article

The '''Liberal Democrats''', often known as the "'''Lib Dems'''", are a political party in the [[United Kingdom]]. They have traditionally occupied the center of the political spectrum, between the [[Labour Party]] on the left and the [[Conservative Party]] on the right ("liberal" in British political parlance means "centrist" or "moderate" rather than "left-wing", as it does in the United States). At the present time, the party is seen as being moderately left-leaning.

The Liberal Democrats' current leader is [[Nick Clegg]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7148179.stm Clegg nicks it</ref>

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger between the centrist [[British Liberal Party]] and the moderately left-wing [[Social Democratic Party]], which had split off from the Labour Party in the early 1980s when the latter became too strongly socialist. The Liberal Party was one of the oldest political parties in the world, tracing its roots back to the [[Whigs]] of the era of [[William of Orange]].

== History ==
Since its foundation, the party has steadily increased its presence in the [[House of Commons]] at each successive election. The party won 62 seats in the 2005 general election<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/ Election 2005</ref> - the most that the party or its predecessors had won since the election of 1923.

== Policies ==
Their policies can be broadly described as social-democratic, with a libertarian bent. They are in favor of legalization and government regulation of marijuana, and decriminalizing the possession (but not supply) of other illegal recreational drugs, believing that medical treatment for drug addicts is more helpful than prosecution or imprisonment. They also argue for a rationalization of the currently confused status of the various components of the [[United Kingdom]], such as simplifying the benefits system for disabled people<ref name="policies">http://www.libdems.org.uk/what_we_stand_for.aspx Liberal Democrat policies</ref>.

They support laws against discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion and sexuality.<ref>http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/11CivilLiberties.pdf Protecting Civil Liberties</ref> The party traditionally advocated higher spending funded from higher taxes, but from 2007 onwards have advocated replacing or cutting some taxes, particularly Council Tax, which takes a higher proportion from the poor than the rich.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3130988.stm Lib Dems vote to axe council tax</ref> They opposed the [[Iraq War]], but were in favour of the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. They are the most pro-European Union party in [[British politics]], and support an amnesty for illegal migrants that have lived in the UK for a decade without a criminal record,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/nlibdem718.xml Lib Dems want amnesty for illegal immigrants</ref> however, they wish to tighten control on immigration, especially illegal immigration, through reforms of immigration law and the creation of an integrated border police force, returning the UK to a policy of entry and exit controls, to monitor movement in and out of the UK<ref name="policies"/>. Lib Dems, like most other parties in the UK, want the UK and the EU to take the lead in combating [[Global Warming]]. The Lib Dems want to stop global temperatures rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above the 1990 average, by making the UK a zero-carbon economy by 2050, and having more efficient buildings and transport.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/29/uk.greenpolitics Lib Dems see zero-carbon Britain setting the global green agenda</ref>

The most realistic chance of power for the party is to be part of a coalition government in a hung parliament, and they always state their terms for such an event at General elections. This has always included introducing [[proportional representation]] for elections, and their terms for the 2009/10 election include: to reform government by capping private donations, reducing the number of MPs, having a 100% elected [[House of Lords]] (it is currently made of bishops, party appointees, and hereditary peers), and having a written [[constitution]] and a [[Bill of Rights]], as current UK constitutional law is confusingly spread out over parts of several legal documents.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/10/liberaldemocrats.nickclegg Clegg's terms for deal in hung parliament</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Link==
* [http://www.libdems.org.uk/ Official Liberal Democrats website]

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:British Politics]]

Talk:CE

2010-03-09T22:54:52Z

RobertE: /* Weekdays */ more information

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes <ref>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html</ref> --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Merrium websters ==

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)
<pre>
Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun
Date:1846

: CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun
Date:1657

: the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era — often punctuated; Common Era; often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

</pre>

== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==

There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==

CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Weekdays ==

Why this was eliminated?
: Those pagan names were successfully replaced only in Portuguese, due to the efforts of Martinho de Dume, roman catholic bishop of Braga (518 - 579). See, for example [http://www.portuguese-resource.co.uk/?page_id=344 this text in Portuguese] or [http://gobrazil.about.com/od/travelportuguese/qt/daynames.htm this text in English]
Just because it shows that Portuguese is a more Christian language than English? :-) [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:45, 9 March 2010 (EST)
:Let Portugal do as it pleases, but don't bring Portuguese policy here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)

:This has nothing to do with atheistic denial of the basis of a dating system. And, by the way, atheists seem just fine with the pagan weekdays while they insist on erasing reference to Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)

:: I don't dispute your basic point, but in fact atheists ''have'' abolished pagan names for weekdays - at least in the past. The atheistic and socialist French Revolution instituted a calendar in which there were 12 months of 30 days each, named largely after the Parisian weather, and in which each week had ten days simply named after numbers (primidi, duodi, tridi and so on). You are totally correct that modern atheists seem more intent on removing references to Christianity than references to more primitive religions, however. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:54, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-03-01T04:48:47Z

RobertE: /* Conservapedia Leads....Others Follow! */ comprehension fail

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::''(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to endorse it. In fact I personally reject it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)''

::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.

::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Maquissar, there's no logic to your argument. Listing many potential factors says nothing about the significance of the factors. The existence of "many" variables does not negate the ability to identify a cause-and-effect. There are "many" variables connected with lung cancer too. And one of those variables is clearly the major cause of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: So, let me get this clear, without any room for doubt. Are you saying that cigarette smoking is to lung cancer what socialism and endorsement of homosexual marriage are to decline of athletic performance of nations? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 20:13, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: Please don't forget to mention the recent Men's Olympic Hockey and Female's Olympic Hockey win on the main page as the American game win against the Canadians got a mention right before this silly cheap shot was posted. Then after you post that, be sure to post how a country that elected a Marxist-identifying, socialist focused president has embarrassed itself when going up against one of the most entrepreneurial nations on Earth. And American conservatives wonder WHY they get put down in the media as they attack their biggest trading partner and war ally which has a much more conservative party in charge then their own country has been able to get in the past twenty years. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 18:13, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Well, Canada DID defeat the US in the hockey final, and it did well at the Olympics after all. I don't think it's fair to say that Canada "embarassed itself" at the Olympics. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:18, 28 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, and I'm very happy for the Canadians. I know why the liberal media put down American conservatives, and I don't think Composer describes it accurately. But, hey, it's time for Canada to celebrate and I'm fine with taking some criticism as part of that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 28 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::The whole issue isn't a political issue, it's a sports issue. The current government's ideology is a factor but it is minor compared to other factors such as how much money is being put into the athletes and also what kinds of sports are popular in the culture they hail from. If anyone should be getting praise first it should be the athletes THEN the country in that order. I don't know why Canada gets shoe horned into the description of being 'socialist' alongside some very distasteful regimes. Canadians don't hate America as well. We're different and we don't always see eye to eye but we have helped each other in the past and will continue to do so.--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 19:45, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::User:Composer, I don't agree with any denial about the impact of politics. When liberal or socialistic political systems are imposed on a people, it does have harmful effects. Atheism increases and charity decreases, just to name two obvious effects. Ideas do matter, and leftists push their policies for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 February 2010 (EST)

== Conservapedia Leads....Others Follow! ==
'''“The lesson here may be that a centrally-planned economy is not good for very many things -- but the Olympics may be an exception.”''' [http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/winter-olympics-balance-of-power.html]

This is yet another case of Conservapedia being ahead of the curve. Andy, you were spot-on, as usual. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:24, 28 February 2010 (EST)

: TK - you realize that link proves exactly the opposite of what you want it to, right? It says that since certain countries have moved to the free market, they have won proportionally '''fewer''' medals than they did under communism. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 23:48, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Soccer teams in England

2010-03-01T02:31:26Z

RobertE: Updated

The game of [[soccer]] in [[England]] - known as ''football'' therein, as in most parts of the world - is organized into four professional leagues at the apex of a pyramid of semi-professional and amateur leagues. There are 92 professional teams and innumerable semi-pro and amateur sides. The four professional leagues comprise the Premier League (20 teams), the Championship, League One and League Two (24 teams each). Below League Two, the Conference league provides a stepping-stone for semi-pro sides to gain promotion to the professional leagues.

Outside of the US, soccer is known as "football" (Spanish ''futbal''), with soccer teams typically calling themselves a "football club" (F.C.).

==Premier League teams==

*'''[[Arsenal F.C.]]''' is based in north [[London]]. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]]. Finishing fourth in the [[English Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of football. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Barcelona]] in the summer of 2007. In 2006 the team moved from their old stadium, ''Arsenal Stadium'', located in, and more commonly known as ''Highbury''. The team's new stadium is named after the [[Dubai]] airline and sponsor, [[Emirates Airlines|Emirates]].

*'''[[Aston Villa F.C.]]''' is based in [[Aston]], [[Birmingham]], in the English [[Midlands]]. One of the 12 founder members of the Football League. Currently coached by Martin O'Neill, a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest]], [[Norwich City]] and [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]].They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].

*'''[[Blackburn Rovers F.C.]]''' is an [[England|English]] [[football]] team that play in the [[English Premier League|Premiership]] . The club hails from the town of [[Blackburn]] in [[Lancashire]]. Formed in 1875, Rovers were one of the 12 founding members of the Football League. They have won the league championship a total of 3 times and were 1994-5 Premiership champions, in addition they have won the F.A. Cup 6 times and the League Cup once. Blacburn's current manager is [[Sam Allardyce]]. Their home stadium is Ewood Park.<ref>[http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/ Blacburn Rovers FC Homepage]</ref>

*'''[[Bolton Wanderers F.C.]]''', one of the 12 founder members of the Football League, play in the town of [[Bolton]], north-east of Manchester. Historically, they have played in either of the top two divisions of the League. They have won the F.A. Cup several times but have never been League champions.

*'''Burnley FC'''. One of the founder members of the League.

*'''[[Chelsea F.C.]]''' play at Stamford Bridge, in west [[London]]. The club is owned by [[Russia]]n billionaire [[Roman Abramovich]] was managed by [[Avram Grant]] for most of the 2007-08 season. In 2007-08 the side finished second in the Premier League.

*'''[[Everton F.C.]]''' is based in [[Liverpool]]. Founded in 1878 as a church sports side they were became of the 12 founder members of the [[Football League]] in 1888. However, owing to a rent dispute in 1892 they left their home ground of [[Anfield]] and moved to a new site at [[Goodison Park]], where they have played ever since. There are plans under discussion to move outside the city of Liverpool and establish a new ground over a Tesco supermarket in nearby Knowsley. The club's nickname is ''The Toffees''; although there are several hypotheses about how the name arose it is likely that it derives from the black and white striped, toffee filled, candy known as an ''Everton Mint''. Everton's biggest rivals are [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] who were formed in 1892 to utilise the abandoned Anfield ground. Despite Everton's successes over the years they have been overshadowed by their illustrious neighbours who hold the records for the most top flight championships as well as European trophies won in the English game.

*'''[[Fulham F.C.]]''' is based in the [[London]] Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Their nickname is The Cottagers, after their home ground of Craven Cottage alongside the [[River Thames]], which can usually be seen during the Oxford and Cambridge boat-race. The club was founded in 1879 and are the oldest professional soccer team in London. The club strip comprises white shirts and socks with black shorts. Despite their long history they have never won any major honors. The club is currently owned by the Egyptian millionaire and owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al-Fayed who took control in 1997.
*[http://www.fulhamfc.com Official site]
*[http://www.premierleague.com/page/fulham Premier League - Fulham]

*'''[[Hull City F.C.]]''', based in the east-coast port city of [[Hull]], were promoted to the Premier League in 2008. This will be the first time that Hull has been represented in the top tier of English football.

*'''[[Liverpool F.C.]]''' was founded in 1892. It is based in Anfield stadium, although is expected to relocate to Stanley Park in 2011. The club has become the most successful club in English league history, winning eighteen League titles as well as five European cups. The current manager is Rafael Benitez.
:The Club's most bitter rivalries are with Everton, Manchester United and Chelsea.
The club was founded after a dispute between the owner of the Anfield Road Ground, John Houlding, and the team that was the tenant, Everton FC. Everton built and occupied their own ground, Goodison Park, leaving Houlding with an unproductive and vacant Anfield. Houlding began Liverpool F.C. to utilize his asset.The Clubs first ever manager was an Irshman, John Mckenna. McKenna brought in a lot of players to the club, many of them from Scotland. Under his supervision it was promoted twice: first from the [[Lancaster]] League to the Second division, and then from the second to first divisions. He also worked with Houlding to develope Anfield and expand its capacity. The club won its first League title in 1900-01.

*'''[[Manchester City F.C.]]''' is the smaller of two [[English Premier League]] teams in the city of [[Manchester]]. Usually lying lower in the Premier League than their [[Derby|derby]] rivals, [[Manchester United]], City is managed by Mark Hughes. The team plays at the City of Manchester Stadium, built as the main stadium for the 2002 [[Commonwealth Games]]. The stadium hosted the [[UEFA Cup]] Final 2008.

*'''[[Manchester United F.C.]]''' Manchester United play in red shirts, white shorts and black socks. They were the first English club to win the European Cup, in 1968, winning again in 1999 and 2008. The club joined the Football League in 1892 under the name Newton Heath. Their official nickname is the "Red Devils" and the club badge features a small black devil holding a trident. They are known to their fans either as Man U, Man United or just United. In 2005 the club was taken over by the [[America|American]] billionaire, Malcolm Glazer. After two seasons with little success by their standards they won the Barclays Premier League again in 2007 and 2008.The club is noted for the exeptionally cosmopolitan nature of its support, regulary drawing large numbers of fans from all over the the [[United Kingdom]] and the [[Republic of Ireland]]. As a result it is consistently the most supported team in England.The Club maintains bitter rivalries with Manchester City, Liverpool Leeds United and Arsenal

*'''[[Portsmouth F.C.]]''' is based in [[Portsmouth]], on the southern coast of [[England]]. Known colloquially as 'Pompey', the club is owned by [[Alexandre Guydamak]] and managed by [[Harry Redknapp]].

They have recently been forced into administration because of the poor management of their owners.

*'''[[Stoke City F.C.]]''', based in the Midlands city of [[Stoke on Trent]], were newly promoted to the Premier League in 2008. Stoke was one of the 12 founder members of the Football League.

*'''[[Sunderland A.F.C.]]''' are based in the northeastern city of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, where they play in the Stadium of Light. The club's nickname is The Black Cats, or the Mackems, and the club's crest depicts two black lions support a heraldic shield. The club strip comprises red and white striped shirts with black shorts and socks. The club was founded in [[1879]] and joined the Football League in 1890 (replacing Stoke City). They remained remaining continuously in the top division until 1958. Since then they have been promoted to and relegated from the the top flight several times and are one of the 2007-8 season's Premier League new boys. Sunderland were successful in their early years, being League Champions five times between 1892 and 1913, with the addition of a sixth title in 1936. They won the [[FA Cup]] in 1937 and then again in 1973, which has been their only notable honor since [[World War II]]. The club is currently managed by Roy Keane. [http://www.safc.com Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/sunderland Premier League - Sunderland]

*'''[[Tottenham Hotspur F.C.]]''' ('Spurs' to their supporters) are a north London team, [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. They are based at White Hart Lane Stadium.

*'''[[West Ham United F.C.]]'''<ref>http://www.whufc.com/</ref> ('The Hammers', colloquially) are a [[London]] team, managed by [[Alan Curbishly]], and with their home ground in [[Upton Park]].

*'''[[Wigan Athletic F.C.]]''' is based in the northwestern town of Wigan, Lancashire (now part of [[Greater Manchester]]). The club's nickname is ''The Latics''. The club was founded in 1932 after several unsuccessful attempts to run a soccer club in a town where Rugby League is the most popular sport. After playing in the minor leagues for many years, Wigan gained entry to the old Fourth Division of the Football League in 1978 and promoted to the Third Division in 1982. In 1993 they were relegated to the lower league and were bought in 1995 by David Whelan, an ambitious local millionaire who had made his fortune selling sportswear. Two years later, in 1997, they were promoted back to third-tier football and within six years had secured a further step up the second tier. It took only a further two years for them to complete a remarkable progression from fourth-tier to top-tier, when they were promoted to the Premier League in 2005. The club play at the JJB Stadium which they share with Rugby League club Wigan Warriors (also owned by Devid Whelan). The stadium was built in 1999 and named after Whelan's sportswear chain ''JJB Sports''. The club continues to struggle for support and its highest ever home attendance is 25,000 for visitors [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] in February 2006. After raising ticket prices in 2006 Wigan had to cut them in response to falling attendances and have kept them low at a time when almost all other Premier League clubs were making significant increases. After a poor 2006-7 season in which they just managed to avoid relegation, their manager Paul Jewell resigned and was replaced by Chris Hutchings. Hutchings was sacked after a poor start to the 2007-8 season. [http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/wigan-athletic Premier League - Wigan Athletic]

*'''Wolverhampton Wanderers FC''' One of the founder members of the League.

==Championship teams==

*'''Barnsley FC'''

*'''Birmingham City FC''' was founded in 1875 as Small Heath Alliance, they became Small Heath in 1888 and later Birmingham FC in 1905. They finally adopted the moniker Birmingham City FC in 1943. The club's home ground has been St. Andrew's since 1906. Although being the second largest city in England (after [[London]]) Birmingham City Football Club have known little success in the major competitions and have lived in the shadow of their neighbours and fierce rivals Aston Villa. The club's nickname is "The Blues" on account of the color of their team strip. Birmingham City was relegated from the Premier League to the Championship mat the end of the 2007-08 season.

*'''Blackpool FC'''

*'''Bristol City FC'''

*'''Cardiff City FC'''

*'''Charlton Athletic FC'''

*'''Coventry City FC'''

*'''Derby County FC''' Their nickname is ''The Rams'', after the symbol for the county of [[Derbyshire]] and also the club. One of the founder members of the League. Their current home ground is Pride Park, but they previously played at the Baseball Ground. Derby County was relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2007-08 season. [http://www.dcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/ Official site]

*'''Doncaster Rovers FC'''

*'''Ipswich Town FC'''

*'''[[Middlesbrough F.C.]]''' ('Boro') is based in [[Middlesbrough]], in north-east [[England]]. The side was founded in 1876 by members of Middlesbrough [[Cricket]] Club<ref>http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,1~51936,00.html</ref>. Between 1903 and 1995 its home ground was Ayresome Park but in 1995 it moved to the Riverside Stadium. Middlesbrough were winners of the League Cup in 2004.

*'''[[Newcastle United F.C.]]''' , founded in 1892 by the merger of Newcastle West End and Newcastle East End, plays at St James' Park in [[Newcastle upon Tyne]]. Their club colors are black and white stripes with black shorts. The current manager of Newcastle United is [[Kevin Keegan]]. Newcastle United are nicknamed 'the Magpies', or, more simply, 'Toon' (the local pronunciation of 'town'); its fans are the 'Toon Army'.

*'''Norwich City FC'''

*'''Nottingham Forest FC'''

*'''Plymouth Argyle FC'''

*'''Preston North End FC''' One of the founder members of the League.

*'''Queens Park Rangers FC'''

*'''Reading FC''' are an [[England|English]] [[soccer|football]] [[club]] based in the southern town of [[Reading]], [[Berkshire]]. The club's nickname since 1970 is The Royals (Berkshire is known as the Royal County); formerly they were known as The Biscuitmen after the Huntley & Palmers [[cookie|biscuit]] factory. The club strip comprises royal-blue and white hooped shirts with royal-blue shorts and socks. The club was founded on [[Christmas]] Day 1871 and in 1920 joined the Third Division of the original Football League. Apart from brief excursions to the second and fourth tiers, Reading were generally a third-tier team until 2002 when the made the longer term move to second level competition. They were promoted to the Premier League in 2006 after running away with The Championship, but relegated to the Championship at the end of the 2007-08 season. The club play at the Madejski Stadium, built in 1998 and named after their multi-millionaire owner John Madejski who bought the club in 1990. Reading's worst ever defeat was by Preston North End in 1894, when they lost 18-0. Reading have registered their fans as an official (unpaid) member of their team squad, in recognition of the effect their support has for the team, and given the Number 13. The club is currently managed by Steve Coppell. [http://www.readingfc.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/reading Premier League - Reading]

*'''Sheffield United FC'''

*'''Sheffield Wednesday FC'''

*'''Southampton FC'''

*'''Swansea City AFC'''

*'''Watford FC'''

*'''[[West Bromwich Albion F.C.]]''', known as 'The Baggies', play at The Hawthorns. One of the 12 founder members of the Football League.

==League One teams==

*'''Brighton & Hove Albion FC'''

*'''Bristol Rovers FC'''

*'''Carlisle United FC'''

*'''Cheltenham Town FC'''

*'''Colchester United FC'''

*'''Crewe Alexandra FC'''

*'''Hartlepool United FC'''

*'''Hereford United FC'''

*'''Huddersfield Town FC'''

*'''Leeds United FC''', based in the northern city of [[Leeds]], play at Elland Road stadium. Their traditional strip is white shirts and shorts. Leeds has long been one of the strongest sides in England, but financial mismanagement of the club in the early years of this decade, reflected in sporting performance, has brought it to its current lowly situation

*'''Leicester City FC'''

*'''Leyton Orient FC'''

*'''Millwall FC'''

*'''MK Dons FC'''

*'''Northampton Town FC'''

*'''Oldham Athletic FC'''

*'''Peterborough United FC'''

*'''Scun<nowiki></nowiki>thorpe United FC'''

*'''Southend United FC'''

*'''Stockport County FC'''

*'''Swindon Town FC'''

*'''Tranmere Rovers FC'''

*'''Walsall FC'''

*'''Yeovil Town FC'''

==League Two teams==

==References==
<references/>

==Further information==
*The Football League: http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Home/0,,10794,00.html

[[Category:Soccer]]