Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Palexicon

2009-04-05T23:34:07Z

RobertWDP: New page: TK, as you have deleted my suggestion of deletion I just think it needs to be made clear that this article is in serious need of cleaning up. It doesn't even seem to have coherent English ...

TK, as you have deleted my suggestion of deletion I just think it needs to be made clear that this article is in serious need of cleaning up. It doesn't even seem to have coherent English sentences as it is, which certainly doesn't help to explain exactly what it is supposed to be describing. I would try and improve it myself if I could decipher exactly what the creator is trying to say. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:34, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Palexicon

2009-04-05T17:13:36Z

RobertWDP: needs LOTS of improvement to grammar, neutrality and general content

{{delete}}

'''Palexicon - Pallywood!''' Palestinian Arabs' very own lexicon.

The drama language of Pallywood [http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php ], from exaggeration to falsification (in [[Israel]]'s war against [[Arab]] [[Muslim]] initiated attacks where they cause Arab kids' deaths [in their known tricks of using them] in order to make Israel look bad) and even uttering outrageous terms to simply hurt feelings of an entire nation, like using the [[WW2]] [[Holocaust]]. 
Under title:The Islamo Arab CRIME on the 6,000,000 holy innocent victims of the [real] HOLOCAUST
a blogger explains the "reasons" behind this criminal language:
'It entails a few fascist points, First: it seeks to dramatize the fallen as if it is not a battle but a “cold blooded campaign”, second: it seeks to diminish the uniqueness of that most outrageous crime in history, that of WW2 (where there was a clear plan to erase an entire creed from the face of the earth, there were no attacks from Jews upon Germans, nor were there any “battles” between the Nazis and all the 6 million or the 1.5 Million Jewish kids slaughtered only for pertaining to a certain origin), third: it seeks to hurt feeling of ALL Jews in the world.' [http://therealityshow.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/31/the_islamo_arab_crime_on_the_6,000,000_holy_innocent_victims_of_the_real_holocaust.thtml ] [http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/11/29/using-jewish-heritage-and-the-holocaust-to-bash-israel-and-america/#comment-530083 ] [http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/153055 ][http://lightonthings.blogspot.com/2009/03/islamo-arab-crime-on-6000000-holy.html ] [http://freeisraelnow.blogspot.com/2009/03/islamo-arab-crime-on-6000000-holy.html ] [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/peace/blog/2009/04/04/the_islamo_arab_crime_on_the_6000000_holy_innocent_victims_of_the_real_holocaust ]

[[Category:Terrorism]]

[[Category:Israel]]

Talk:Operation Cast Lead

2009-04-05T16:18:22Z

RobertWDP: CLEAN UP!

Could someone please help clean up this article. The grammar is all over the place, there are some rather dubious phrases used, to the point where it looks like parody, and the referencing is done in rather a strange manner. Until I added it just now it didn't even state what 'Cast Lead' was until a few paragraphs down. On that point I would suggest that this page be moved to the title 'Operation Cast Lead'. If it isn't in fact parody then it would seem that the main contributor to this article has a significantly one-sided view of events as is reflected by the article as it stands. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-05T15:20:35Z

RobertWDP: /* Do you actually want editors to help? */

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

:::::JosephMac, your score is is 40, and you got some of the most challenging questions! That makes a new second place among internet submissions, and ties for second best among all submissions. Good job.

:::::Also, thanks for catching the error about the dynasties! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:I'm just pleased that JosephMac corrected the statement ''Prussia (the former name for Germany)'' to ''Prussia (the most powerful of the German states)'', and that A. Schlafly doesn't object any longer. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How does "40" by JosephMac become a "new second place" among all submissions? We already have a 40 for second place, so JosephMac would tie for second place. Still a great score.

People are denying too much the ban on Catholicism for the British Prime Minister. The ban plainly does apply to the monarch and spouse of the monarch, and Tony Blair plainly did delay until after abdicating as Prime Minister before converting, and there plainly are legal restrictions that would kick in if a Prime Minister were Catholic. Why do so many Brits insist on denying the ban??? The denial is odd in itself.

ClementB's comment is misleading as I do still object to his suggested change to the Prussia/Germany statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:You're still clinging to your statement that ''Prussia is a former name for Germany''? And your only justification for doing so is the short entry on the Merriam-Webster, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prussia stating]

:'' '''Prussia:''' former kingdom & state of Germany * Berlin''

:You misread this entry. This becomes clear when you have a look at the entry on [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waldeck Waldeck]:

:'' '''Waldeck:''' former county, principality, & state of Germany between Westphalia & Hesse-Nassau * Arolsen''

:Your reading of the Merriam-Webster would make ''Waldeck'' a former name of Germany, too.

:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'm afraid on the point about Catholicism and the Prime Minister you are wrong. There is NO legal restriction against a Catholic Prime Minister. The reason so many Brits 'deny' the ban? Because there isn't one. Sorry, but that fact has to be cleared up. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-04T11:37:37Z

RobertWDP:

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-04T11:36:42Z

RobertWDP: /* Do you actually want editors to help? */

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely that at the end. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3746398.stm] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-04T11:24:51Z

RobertWDP: /* Do you actually want editors to help? */

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-04-04T11:24:21Z

RobertWDP: /* Do you actually want editors to help? */

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Prussia vs. Germany ==

To call ''Prussia the former name of Germany'' is like calling ''Maryland the former name of the USA''... [[User:ClementB|ClementB]] 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "
::Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.
::To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::: The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

::: Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::The lecture states ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.
::::I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that ''Prussia was a German state''. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the ''former kingdom of Germany'', when all it implies that it is a ''former German kingdom''.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

::::As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on [[Germany]] to include this point. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on [[Germany]]. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with
:::::''Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany. ''
:::::But then, you find the line
:::::''Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945). ''
:::::Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia ''is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany''?
:::::Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.'' to something like ''Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.''
:::::If you insist on your view, the line ''A former name of [[Germany]] is [[Prussia]]'' should be added to the article on [[Germany]].
:::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.
:::::::* He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
:::::::* I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
:::::::* You said: ''A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. '' We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ''ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'' was kept in biology text books around the world because it is ''easy to learn and remember'', though there was no truth in it.
:::::::* I'm thankful that you considered my note on the ''Red Cross'' in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the ''industrial revolution'' in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

::::::: This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further ''World History Lectures''.
::::::: Yours [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: ''Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany.'' is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as ''Prussia is the former state of Germany''. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Do you actually want editors to help? ==

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,
* Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
* There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.
So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

: The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

: We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top [[homeschooled]] students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::*No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
::*As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
::*I'm not pretending about anything.
::*I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
::*Mind your language, please.[[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. [[User:LeslieHoyson|LeslieHoyson]] 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the [[World History Midterm Exam]]. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

:::: It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and '''is likely to rise to No 1 by next year''' [2008], a study by The Times has found."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece]

::::: 1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.
(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

::::: I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

::::: As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp] Mohammed is no. 17. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

:::::: Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently of has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:22:46Z

RobertWDP: /* Is it falsifiable or not? */

Better. Explained the iron problem and its solution. Removed all mention of Canup, as it is very confusing to refer to: "This scientist said X, which supports my position. But then they said they were wrong, their computer model was off, X is not true at all. Still, they said X, so im going to cite them as supporting my claim."

-----
Who wrote this? It has about as much scientific accuracy as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Further, the article ''contradicts'' the same source it claims support from regarding angular momentum! --{{unsigned|Suricou}}

The history of the Moon Theories, and the reason for their rejection, has been censored from this content page. Why? We're not going to allow censorship of history here. No one disputes this history, so why are folks trying to censor it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:...wha? The source you cited explained why the current theory is generally accepted and why the previous theories are most likely wrong. The article reflects that. Please explain what is being "censored". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: What was censored is that the prevailing, accepted theories of the origin of the Moon were disproven by the lunar landings, and then scientists convened to deveop a new theory. That is historical fact. No one disputes it. Why do liberals insist on censoring it???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... there is ''one'' currently accepted theory. And that is not disproven by the lunar landing. The article mentions the three old theories that are in the source AND says what speaks against them. It's right there. In fact, the first three items of the list were left almost completely untouched.
::And what do you expect scientists to say when something speaks against their current theory? Something like "Wow, the new findings go against our theory! So we must not develop a new theory, but instead we should embrace the fact that God the Almighty did it!" maybe? So of course they developed a new theory based on new observations. Welcome to science.
::The current theory (number 4) is not disproven. The source argues in favor of it. Trying to cite it to "prove" or even "suggest" that it's wrong would be extremely deceiving. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Honest question from a frustrated user ==

Aschlafly, are you going to ban me if I rephrase/expand the current "article" and take some of your anti-scientific spin and quote-mining out it to make it a bit more neutral and balanced? This would normally be a no-brainer, but the article and site history (especially the reverts) show that this is not a trivial question, so I'd rather have permission before I get infinitely banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Everything in the content page is factual and thoroughly supported. Be specific about what you think is wrong. Obviously this challenges your personal opinions but the point here is to set forth the scientific and historical facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't think you should let him change a thing. It is a really, really good article as is everything you contribute to this site. Your students are very lucky to have you. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's see... I didn't read into your more recent changes, but let's start with a few cases of ''conveniently'' selective quoting:
{{QuoteBox|Three such tests are discussed here. None of these is supportive of the Giant Impact model, '''but neither do they disprove it'''.}}
{{QuoteBox|Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories. "Putting enough material into orbit to form the moon seemed to require a rather narrow set of impact conditions," says Robin M. Canup of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. '''But a new study by her and Erik Asphaug of the University of California at Santa Cruz may have broken the logjam.'''}}
{{QuoteBox|Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-Earth's mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect. 
 
In 1997 Alastair G. W. Cameron, one of the fathers of the giant-impact theory, now at the University of Arizona, arrived at a total mass that was a third too low. He suggested that subsequent asteroid impacts made up the difference. But few liked the idea, as the asteroids would have added extra iron. 
 
'''Canup and Asphaug argue that the fault lies not in the stars but in our simulations.''' The calculations rely on a technique known as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, which subdivides the bodies and applies the laws of physics to each piece. Early runs tracked 3,000 pieces--leaving the iron core of the moon to be represented by just a single piece. Even the slightest computational imprecision could vastly overstate the iron content, in which case the computer compensated by reducing the impact angle. The result was a bias toward heavy impactors and light proto-Earths. '''Because Canup and Asphaug use 30,000 particles, they get by with a much smaller impactor. Everything--mass, iron, momentum--clicks into place.'''}}
::I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with the theory (and criticism should be mentioned in the article, of course), but you try to make things look as if scientists only cling to a completely silly theory that has been effectively disproven already.

::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is.

::::Funny, I see this argument being used against creationism. Yes, the UFO theory is silly. Just as silly as the "God created it. The end." theory. The criticism could lead to a prove against the impact theory. Right now, we have a bunch of scientists who voice their concern. Research has to be done to see if it actually shows that the theory is wrong or not. If it is wrong (this is, of course, quite possible), then they have to work on a new theory, based on the new observations. This is science. Just not the "Let's quotemine articles and label it proof!" sort of science that is used on this site. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only thing I credit you for is the omission of any overly "Of course, the only truth is that God created the Moon during Creation Week, and Answers in Genesis shows undeniable proof." bias... yet.

::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No. If you want "silly comment", look at [[Moon]], for example: "Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?).

::: There is nothing factual that supports the theory. It's pure speculation by a few scientists whose prior theories have been completely disproven. I don't even see evidence that most scientists even support this new theory. They didn't for ten years after it was proposed, and the scientists who wrote those articles that I cite plainly don't support it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to create an ultra-super-"Why that theory has been proven without doubt!" article. I just want a bit of fairness and a bit of style correction to make the article look halfway presentable. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Weren't the huge quote blocks specific enough? You left out anything that speaks in favor of the theory. No wonder you think that [[Theory of evolution]] is a good article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Okay, serious case of WTF here. I'm not leaving the article because of "the facts" or because "my views" have been challenged. Look at my long post (which you butchered up into many small posts). Look at where I stated that I didn't want to turn this into an ultra-pro-this-theory playground and that I acknowledge the criticism. I was aiming for BALANCE. You know, FAIRNESS. Unlike your little propaganda piece that only tries to aim as much doubt at the current theory as possible.
:::::'''The reason why I'm leaving the article''' (and quite possibly the site soon enough) '''is YOU.''' Your completely inane posts and "articles" drive me crazy. Blogs and news sites in several countries openly mock you and your site, yet you are completely immune to any sort of criticism. Of course, you are not alone there. Don't worry. I don't just think that you alone are a sad joke on this site. Conservative gets to be your first mate on the S.S. Flawed Perception. Didn't you ever consider that you might be wrong and that the several news sites (and the whole bunch of blogs) around the world may actually have a point or two?
:::::The Moon Theory article was doomed the second you decided that the currently accepted theory is wrong. I could try to add balance to the article, but my efforts would instantly be neutralized; either through reverts or by bloating the criticism section even more. I apologize for wasting your time. I had assumed for a minute that you'd actually be interested in anything but complete bias. In retrospec, I honestly don't know why I ever assumed such a silly thing.
:::::Why don't you just deliver the ''coup de grâce'' and "protect" it against liberal vandalism? You could even give control over it to Conservative, I'm sure he'll be delighted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That was one of the funniest exchanges yet on this site. --[[User:Redscare|Redscare]] 22:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I enjoy reading arguements from someone who refuses to listen to another viewpoint by telling people they're not listening to theirs. There are several users on this site who do it all the time. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So what is the point of citing the evidence if Giant-Impact theory is not scientific anyway? I really don't understand your position. Why are you willing to say that the other models were disproven? Does the evidence show that the Giant-Impact theory is better than the other models or not? If yes, then the Giant-Impact theory must be scientific. If not, then I guess the other models weren't really disproven. Either way, you make no sense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If a theory can be proven wrong (as is alledged in the article), then it is by definition "falsifiable". [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Following is incorrect ==

From the article "This new theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability",

The theory is falsifaiable if future mineral analysis detects materials which could not have originated from Earth, or if closer examination of Earths mineral content produces results which are inconsistant with the theory.

The theory can be tested by carrying out mineral analysis upon the moon (for example in deep moon bores), which would either support the theory or falsify it.

Thus this sentence is factually incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, in the Criticisms section there is actually a report quoted which details three possible tests! If something can be proved wrong, that means it is "falsifiable", it isn't really all that difficult to understand. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Clinging to unsupported theories==

*The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

This, unfortunately, has been the norm throughout scientific history. In the 1860s, nobody had been able to come up with the [[germ theory of disease]]. More soldiers died of communicable illnesses in the Civil War than of wounds suffered in battle.

I look forward to a renaissance in science, wherein scientists are able to say, "We just don't know." Then maybe they'll be open to alternatives to their [[methodological naturalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:...and what comes after the "We just don't know"? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

We say that all the time, and '''then''' we develop hypotheses to test in order to learn more. We, as scientists (yes im one of those) do not first try to come up with a ''supernatural'' explanation, when a ''natural'' one is more proper. A "[[Renaissance]]" like you describe is more properly called the "[[Dark Ages]]".
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Er, no, by renaissance I did not actually mean the death of curiosity and objectivity. I had in mind something more like conservatives and liberal honestly sharing their insights and working together to improve the world. You have to say "I don't know" before you can say "Let's find out." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But fighting with each other is more rewarding and fnu! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, scientific advances have improved the world tremendously, with the obvious exceptions of WMDs, etc. I'm not sure what avoiding the scientifc method has done for the world.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Scientist Article ==

This article in New Scientist would seem to be relevant: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325875.700-did-the-new-moon-lose-its-iron-heart.html --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Quite interesting! I've got some time on my hands, so unless you're on it, I'll include it and do some rephrasing along the way. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Go for it Sid. I'm off to work.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Decided to go with a full rewrite (got a bit sidetracked by other issues here), now I just have to source it and then I'll post. I also included AmesG's edits to some degree (thanks for pointing out the bit about the impactor's contribution). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sid, the joys of LexisNexis know no bounds.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll keep that in mind in the future, thanks for the tip! But my current "problem" isn't the lack of sources - I wrote the whole thing based on them - but the fact that I rephrased stuff so often that I figured it'd be easier to write first and add Ref-tags later :P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, I await your edits with bated breath.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:There you go. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like it Sid.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested move ==

Since the title is somewhat misleading, I suggest a move to [[Origin of the Moon]]. Opinions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the move. All of the theories discussed in the article relate to the moon's origin, so that's a much more descriptive title. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

:Went ahead with it since there doesn't seem to be anything speaking against it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== AustinM!!! ==

Next time you plan to revert HOURS of hard work that involved looking up new and insightful articles and actually READING a few of the cited sources, '''USE THE TALK PAGE!'''

I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== swap article and discussion pages for superior treatment, more fun ==

"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)

Forget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)article springs current scientific theory half way thru, which is not a good pedagogical technique.(But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.

-------------------------------------------
There is not (blah blah)coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.
-----------------------------------------
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

:I didn't do a deep-down analysis of your changes so far, but they look nice! From what I see, you add a more professional tone to it. I'm not quite sure what you want to do with the above paragraphs. Do you want to insert them into the intro (above the ToC)? If so, I'm all for it - they're a nice summary of the article that comes after it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Sid, I have rewritten intro, and first 2 pars are changed to incorporate initial ref to new theory "Big Whack" at very start. Normal stylistic changes made to body of article. No change in content. Would suggest writers use brackets sparingly - they are not commas. Also, frowned on appearance of terms FeO and “siderophilic” without definition. Turns out former is Ferrous Oxide, and latter means “iron loving”. Have incorporated that as well. All this could be made a little clearer. From what I rem from my own casual reading, reason Moon is poor in iron is because in collision and subsequent heat, most of the heavy stuff sank to Earth’s core. Moon ended up with very little. Basically, Moon is a lot of sterilised accreted dust, fairly boring, and that’s why we stopped going there after we found out what it was made of. Question of angular momentum is dealt with in VERY shallow way. Once again, I’m no expert, but I think there are some big misconceptions here. Will leave note in another section here. [[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

::You're my personal hero for your walk-through there! Excellent points regarding style and usage of words, too. I'll try to keep them in mind.
::The whole issue with the lack of iron of the moon is not really trivial from what I gathered. Depending on the "when", much/most of the iron had sunk to the core already, thus leaving lots of non-iron-y material in the mantle to form the Moon. But then there are the issues of how much material and force you'd need to form the moon in the first place.
::I'm definitely no expert in this field, and I agree that a few things could/should be covered in more detail. Angular momentum being one of them. I just went with the sources I found during an afternoon, and they didn't really go into detail there. It's a start, but it of course needs more work. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth Creation Hypothesis ==

Let me explain what is the problem with this section.

(i) The reference is NOT to a paper written by "Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung (Professor of Physics, Grace College, Indiana), ... presented at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1990", but to the website ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
which is basically a blog, or at best a re-interpretation of someone else's material.

About half way down the article, we find:

"Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. '''The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.'''

This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years." (my emboldenment)

The emboldened claim is actually crucial for the argument that the moon is only 10,000 years old at most. Now, I have no idea whether or not DeYoung has any evidence for the the emboldened claim, and nowhere in the blog is it explained why the rate of increase should have been greater in the past rather than less, the same or even variable over time. More to the point, I do not think the author of the blog has such evidence, or even considered the possibility. What is clear, is that this whole section is based on a claim taken from something which is little more than a blog, and which, in itself, has no academic credibility. If you wish this section to be credible, search out DeYoung's actual paper and use his argument and his evidence; not someone's assertions based on his or her potentially flawed interpretations of them.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

... oh and by the way; try to find someone who refutes his arguments, and clarify why, and if you can find a response where deYoung refutes the refutations, even better!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my experience, AiG has (so far) been pretty much a dead end in terms of sources. However, I would applaud the finding of the original paper and maybe a few better-researched claims (or just better research and reasoning for that one claim at least). What I find odd is that AiG (didn't check if it's that source link or another one) basically echoes most things that are being said in this article and then adds the distance calculation. Sorta makes me wonder why they even bother with the other things when the distance argument supposedly is the ultimate proof. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Expansion of revert summary ==

The revert summary didn't let me write my point fully. From what I gather, all of the "Big Three" have been proven "wrong" (in the sense of needing better explanations that take the new evidence into account - if that is possible). The arguments against it come later on, but the first part seems to be meant to show what had been assumed back then, and I think the source says just that (and also gives the countering explanation). Tectonics isn't exactly my special field, so I won't touch it much, but I invite you to include the argument in the "problems with the big three" section, it appears to me critical for full understanding of the problems with that theory. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 19:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism & scientists ==

Does the term "atheistic scientists" mean that the theories they made were atheistic or the scientists themselves? The latter should have no place in a non-religious/science article. The former makes more sense. Personal attacks on respected scientists are unwarranted.

Keep in mind that "atheism" simply refers to a disbelief in gods, not Abrahamic religions solely. Many theistic religions have beliefs about the origin of the moon. "God is not a deciever." [[User:LyraBelaqua|LyraBelaqua]] 00:36, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
: It would mean the scientists themselves, and is relevant because their views affect their hypotheses. Specifically, a scientist who is an atheist is not even going to ''consider'' the possibility that God created the moon. I agree that God is not a deceiver, and therefore, when God said that he created the moon on the fourth day of creation, he wasn't being deceptive, but actually meant just that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is it falsifiable or not? ==

It has now been two years (!) since some of the above exchanges regarding the falsifiability of the giant impact hypothesis. For some reason, the article still claims that "This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability" and then, two lines later, states that the article has been falsified! '''Both of these cannot be true.''' The theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Unless there are any complaints, I will amend the article to reflect this. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 22:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

:: There is no contradiction? Here's the relevant quote from the article:

:::"This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper.

:::Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."

:::Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory."

:: How can something be falsified if it lacks falsifiability? By ''definition'', both of these cannot be true. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:24, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The wording is now better. But with respect, the problem is not an issue of mere wording. The article claims that the theory is not testable or falsifiable; it then ''lists things which contradict the theory''. If the theory is not falsifiable, then no observation could possibly be taken as "contradictory" to the theory; no potential piece of evidence could make it appear implausible. That's part of what lacking falsifiability implies. The article also claims that the theory lacks testability, but you have just stated here that there have been tests performed to check it! Clearly both of those cannot be true, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, you're getting tangled up in semantics. Your objections could be easily satisfied by minor modifications to the wording, which you could easily do yourself. I suggest you focus on opening your mind to the substance first.

:::::: Thanks for taking it this far, Andy. I'm sure [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] will be able to come up with a revision that satisfies all of us. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:18, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I added a sentence. It seems that the real problem with the theory is not that it's unfalsifiable as it stands, but that it will merely be amended in the event that evidence appears to contradict it, as has been done in the past. I disagree that this makes the theory unfalsifiable but have left that implication in the article, respecting the intent of the author. "has been criticized" may seem weasel-wordy so feel free to revert that if you think so. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 14:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Your edit is heavy-handed, perhaps even a parody of your view of others. If you think the theory is falsifiable, then how would you propose falsifying it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I think the issue of siderophilic elements is a legitimate one, and possibly a falsifier. I'm not up-to-date on the literature but I am guessing planetary scientists are working on ways to amend the giant impact hypothesis which incorporate the lack of such elements. Evidence that the earth has never had a magma ocean would also be a falsifier, but maybe scientists will find a way around that one, too. On a more obvious level, direct evidence that the earth-moon system isn't billions of years old (for example) would also completely be a falsifier. I don't think that a theory being subject to amendment in the light of new discoveries renders it unfalsifiable, but it's your encyclopedia and not mine (and that is an interesting debate in the philosophy of science). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Your points cast doubt on the theory, but I doubt many would see them as falsifying it entirely.

:::::::::: By the way, black holes and the theory of extraterrestrial life are also not falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) I think your opinion on black holes is based on a misunderstanding of the common statement: "'Black holes do not exist' is not falsifiable". Some would argue that this is true (I disagree), but this statement is an argument that falsifiability is not a good demarcation of science from non-science, not that black holes are somehow unscientific. There are serious problems with falsifiability alone. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:edit: I meant to say "'Black holes exist' is not falsifiable." Sorry! [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:39, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:: How would you falsify the claim that black holes exist???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::: That's the point. "Black holes exist" may not be falsifiable ''per se'', but that clearly doesn't mean it suddenly isn't scientific to state that, because obviously that is a scientific statement. This is one of the serious problems with falsifiability as a criterion.

::: Anyway, I'd say that if we do plenty of looking, especially where black holes are expected to be, and find none, that is close enough to being a falsifier. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Surely this is all the wrong way round. The null hypothesis would naturally be that 'no black holes exist'. This is of course falsifiable if black holes are detected. From our understanding of the laws of physics and observations made, the only reasonable conclusion as it stands is that black holes do exist. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Obama birth certificate lawsuits

2009-04-02T15:32:31Z

RobertWDP: /* Case */ quoted from the source

'''Obama birth certificate lawsuits''' is the effort to track court cases regarding citizenship Eligibility and birth certificate of [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. As of today, nearly all court cases have been resulted in dismissal. Substantiate the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, "Natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires is a simple request, denied by the courts. Partial listing of cases courtesy of WND.com [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90843]

==Case==
It has been estimated that Barack Obama has spent up to one-million dollars on lawyers to defend the release of his birth certificate. <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93578 Eligibility judge backs off sanctions threat] Worldnetdaily, April 01, 2009</ref>

*[[New Jersey]] attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

*[[Pennsylvania]] Democrat [[Philip Berg]] has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama. <ref>[http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605 Article Discussion: Obama citizenship suit tossed] Denver Post, October 25th, 200</ref>

*Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] but '''denied''' a full hearing.

*Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against [[Connecticut]]'s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was '''denied''' a full hearing.

*Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the [[United States Justice Foundation]], that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

*[[Chicago]] attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring [[Hawaii]] Gov. [[Linda Lingle]] to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was '''dismissed''' by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

*Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was '''denied'''.

*In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the [[Democratic National Committee]], the Ohio [[Democratic Party]] and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was '''denied'''. <ref>[http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/2018399:Topic:11767 Hearing Thursday in lawsuit doubting Obama's birthplace] Israel Insider, October 28, 2008</ref>

*Also in [[Ohio]], there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which '''ended''' when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff. <ref>[http://americamustknow.com/greenburgcase.aspx Carol Greenberg v. SOS Jennifer Brunner - Dismissed] America Must Know</ref>

*In [[Washington]] state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was '''denied'''.

*In [[Georgia]], Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was '''denied''' by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

*[[California]] attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. <ref>[http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2823 Lightfoot v. Bowen]Right Side of life</ref>

*In addition, other cases cited on the [[RightSideofLife]] blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility:

*In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was '''dismissed'''.

*In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was '''dismissed'''. <ref>[http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=3214 Eligibility Case Archive] Right Side of Life</ref>

*In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

*In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

*In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, '''dismissed'''. <ref>[http://www.uslaw.com/library/Obama_Citizenship/Keyes_v_Lingle_Case_Dismissed_Forensic_Examiner_Disproves_Online_COLB.php?item=334969 Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed] USLaw.com</ref>

==The Angry Judge==
March 5th, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time. Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, successfully argued against futher looking it to the matter with a dismissal. [[U.S.]] District Judge James Robertson said '''"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do."''' <ref name="newsmax">[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_citizenship_cases/2009/03/05/188991.html Judge Blasts Cases Doubting Obama's Citizenship] AP, March 5, 2009</ref>

==Annenberg FactCheck==
FactCheck calls itself a non-partisan watchdog, yet it is the same Annenberg organization Obama and Ayers worked with. Plus, Senator Obama steered earmarks to Annenberg's foundation. These are the same people that were granted access to Obama's birth records. California lawyer Orly Taitz of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation suggests the records from ''"Annenberg FactCheck" be subpoenaed "as to how did they claim to have examined Obama's birth certificate and found it valid. Neither the state of Hawaii, nor Obama has ever released such birth certificate and there is no evidence of Obama being born in any hospital in Hawaii."''

==Nonexistent Media Coverage==
Scant reporting so far, example, [[AP]] mocking the request "In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else." <ref name="newsmax" />

==State of Hawaii==
The [[Republican]] governor of Hawaii, [[Linda Lingle]] refuses to allow anyone to see Obama's birth records. Mysteriously, her state laws are trumping the Constitution, as she hides behind the following, ''“the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant."'' <ref>[http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/268711 Film to Be Made in Hawaii of Obama's Birth] Digital Journal, March 7, 2009</ref>It begs the question 'How did DailyKos get access?' or 'How did FactCheck get access?'

==Petition==
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 WND] Petition seeking Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate

==See also==
* [http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?cat=3 Articles in 2008 Election]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]

Ancient Terms T

2009-04-01T22:53:39Z

RobertWDP: 17th century

{{Ancient Index}}

[[Tacitus]]

[[Taoism (Daoism)]]

[[Ten Commandments]]

[[terra cotta]]

[[Theocracy]]

[[Theravada]]

[[Thucydides]]

Common Latin

2009-04-01T21:25:56Z

RobertWDP: Undo revision 647433 by Jack456 (Talk) there is nothing wrong with this page Jack

'''Common Latin''', also known as '''Vulgar Latin''', is a collection of [[dialect]]s spoken throughout the [[Roman Empire]]. These dialects were spoken by the common people and [[soldier]]s, hence "common". ("Vulgar" in this context is a [[synonym]] for "common".) The upper-class [[Latin]] spoken by the [[church]] and the [[government]] was a different [[dialect]], but it was mutually intelligible to speakers of Common Latin. Common Latin changed over time due to outside influences such as proto-[[German]], and eventually developed into the [[Romance languages]], which include [[French]] and [[Spanish]].

[[Category:Latin]]

Common Latin

2009-04-01T21:25:22Z

RobertWDP: Undo revision 647434 by Jack456 (Talk)

Hannity's America

2009-04-01T13:23:33Z

RobertWDP:

'''Hannity's America''' is a [[neoconservative]] political talk show hosted weekly by [[Sean Hannity]] on the [[Fox News]] Network. Discussions cover the latest political topics of the previous week, in a one-hour format. Hannity gives his opinions and other segments include Hannity's Hot Seat, 2 on 2, Beyond Belief and Your America.

==External Links==
#[http://www.hannitysamerica.com Hannity's America - Forum] (Sean Hannity is not affiliated with this site)

[[Category:television]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]

April Fool's Day

2009-04-01T13:21:46Z

RobertWDP:

'''April Fool's Day''' is the first day of April and is known for practical jokes. The custom is believed to have originated in [[France]] in 1564 when [[New Year's Day]] was changed from April 1st to January 1st. Those continuing to observe April 1st were ridiculed.

==Well Known April Fool's Pranks==

*Taco Bell issuing a press release claiming the purchase of the Liberty Bell from the [[United States]] Government. The release also stated that National Landmark would be renamed the Taco Liberty Bell <ref>http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Taco_Liberty_Bell/</ref>

*The infamous BBC "Panorama" documentary about the "Swiss Spaghetti Harvest", including discussion of the Spaghetti Weevil <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2819000/2819261.stm</ref>

== Sources ==
* The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

==External links==
*[http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/P0/ Top 100 April Fool's Pranks]

==References and notes ==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div> 

[[Category: Customs]]
[[Category:Holidays]]

Christian Cross

2009-04-01T12:07:44Z

RobertWDP: guessing it was meant to be this way round, sorry if i'm mistaken

'''[[Jesus Christ]]''' died on a '''Cross''' after suffering and giving up his spirit. The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who can be saved will be saved.

The Sign of the Cross is a hand motion common in the religious devotions and worship services of [[Roman Catholic]], [[Anglican]], Eastern [[Orthodox]], and some [[Lutheran]] Christians.

 
<center>
<gallery>
Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|By [[Jacques Louis David]]
Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|By [[Salvador Dali]]
</gallery>

<gallery>
Image:Florentine_Cross.jpg|Florentine Cross
Image:Byzantin cross.jpg|Byzantin Cross.
Image:Russian Wall Cross.jpg|Russian Wall Cross
Image:Cross.JPG|Rosary

</gallery>
</center>

== See also ==

*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Rosary]]
*[[Maltese Cross]]

[[Category:Christianity]]

Sarah Palin

2009-04-01T12:04:07Z

RobertWDP: /* Democratic responses */ dead links

{{Officeholder
|name=Sarah Palin
|image=Sarah Palin.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Todd Palin]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Alaska
|terms=December 4, 2006-present
|preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref>, and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.

Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfill a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.<ref>[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine] </ref>

She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.

She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]<ref>http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html</ref> and worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]
Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> after graduating in 1982. She went on to college, after attending several institutions she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" <ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref>.

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref>

<blockquote>
''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' <ref> Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, "Issues" Nov 7, 2006 </ref>
</blockquote>

==Record as Governor==
===Energy and Oil===

A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]</ref>

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]</ref> What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. <ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. <ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. <ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref> 

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. <ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref> A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democratic responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias. Palin "kept Joe Biden on the defensive" and "ended up dominating [the debate]".<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." <ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

==Future==
It is suspected that Palin may spend the next four years building a base for a 2012 run for the Republican nomination against Barack Obama. Given her personal charisma and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory. <ref>[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]</ref>

==Beliefs==
Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|'Theory' of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==
Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. <ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

==Popularity==

Whether or not people say that they like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref> Palin has occasionally been criticized for her love of hunting.

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External Links==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008
*[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}

[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]

Sarah Palin

2009-04-01T12:02:45Z

RobertWDP: /* Democratic responses */ corrected mixing of past and present tense in same sentence

{{Officeholder
|name=Sarah Palin
|image=Sarah Palin.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Todd Palin]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Alaska
|terms=December 4, 2006-present
|preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref>, and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.

Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfill a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.<ref>[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine] </ref>

She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.

She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]<ref>http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html</ref> and worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]
Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> after graduating in 1982. She went on to college, after attending several institutions she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" <ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref>.

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref>

<blockquote>
''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' <ref> Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, "Issues" Nov 7, 2006 </ref>
</blockquote>

==Record as Governor==
===Energy and Oil===

A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]</ref>

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]</ref> What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. <ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. <ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. <ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref> 

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. <ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref> A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democratic responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081004/OPINION02/810040311/1139/news01]</ref><ref>[http://m.nypost.com/ms/p/nyp/nyp/view.m?id=127899&storyid=131936]</ref> Palin "kept Joe Biden on the defensive" and "ended up dominating [the debate]".<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." <ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

==Future==
It is suspected that Palin may spend the next four years building a base for a 2012 run for the Republican nomination against Barack Obama. Given her personal charisma and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory. <ref>[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]</ref>

==Beliefs==
Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|'Theory' of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==
Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. <ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

==Popularity==

Whether or not people say that they like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref> Palin has occasionally been criticized for her love of hunting.

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External Links==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008
*[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}

[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]

Ebola hemorrhagic fever

2009-04-01T11:55:44Z

RobertWDP: removed link (simply links to this very same page)

'''Ebola hemorrhagic fever''' is a severe, often-fatal disease in humans and [[primate]]s that has appeared sporadically since its initial recognition in 1976.

The disease is caused by infection with Ebola virus, named after a river in [[Zaire]], where it was first recognized.

The virus is one of two members of a family of [[RNA virus]]es called the [[Filoviridae]]. There are five identified subtypes of Ebola virus. Four of the five have caused disease in humans: Ebola-Zaire, Ebola-Sudan, Ebola-Ivory Coast and Ebola-Bundibugyo. The fifth, Ebola-Reston, has caused disease only in primates.

==Source==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/Spb/mnpages/dispages/ebola/qa.htm CDC]
*[http://virus.stanford.edu/filo/filo.html Honors thesis at Stanford] - medical info without the political bias

[[Category:Viruses]]

Charles Manson

2009-04-01T11:54:51Z

RobertWDP: removed incorrect info, nothing to suggest this is true.

'''Charles Manson''' was a 1960s [[serial killer]] and [[cult]] leader whose most famous murder was ordering the killing of [[Sharon Tate]]. He brain-washed a devote group of followers into various murders, with the hope of starting a race war and being the leader of the post-apocalyptic world said war would create. He held notions commonly regarded by most as ludicrous; for example, he believed the band The Beatles was his disciples, and their song "Helter Skelter" inspired his idea. He has since come up for parole many times, but has been denied each time this has occurred.

==Extrernal link==
*[http://www.charliemanson.com/tom-snyder-1981.htm 1981 Tom Snyder interview with Charles Manson], Transcribed by Aaron Bredlau. CharlieManson.com. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
*[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/manson.htm The Trial of Charles Manson] at Famous Trials

{{DEFAULTSORT:Manson, Charles}}

[[Category:Serial Killers]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]

Charles Manson

2009-04-01T11:53:21Z

RobertWDP: I do not think that can be assigned to any mainstream ideology

'''Charles Manson''' was a 1960s [[serial killer]] and [[cult]] leader whose most famous murder was ordering the killing of [[Sharon Tate]]. He brain-washed a devote group of followers into various murders, with the hope of starting a race war and being the leader of the post-apocalyptic world said war would create. He held notions commonly regarded by most as ludicrous; for example, he believed the [[Atheist|atheist]] band The Beatles was his disciples, and their song "Helter Skelter" inspired his idea. He has since come up for parole many times, but has been denied each time this has occurred.

==Extrernal link==
*[http://www.charliemanson.com/tom-snyder-1981.htm 1981 Tom Snyder interview with Charles Manson], Transcribed by Aaron Bredlau. CharlieManson.com. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
*[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/manson.htm The Trial of Charles Manson] at Famous Trials

{{DEFAULTSORT:Manson, Charles}}

[[Category:Serial Killers]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-03-28T22:59:38Z

RobertWDP: /* DRUDGE BIAS */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Farah Quote==

The Joseph Farah quote on Wikipedia is good, but it's at the top of this page and at the top of the [[Wikipedia]] page. I think that one appearance of the quote is enough and that it fits in better on the wikipedia page. Does anyone else have an opinion? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 13:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

: I agree. You can move it into a new paragraph. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:: Done. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 14:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding deletion of bios of conservative people: If you can back up your biography with plenty of sources independent of the subject, then the "police" will approve. For more check out Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) notability guideline for people]. Notability trumps any ideology, liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, radical, you-name-it. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Wikipedia does not follow its own policies. If wikipedia was actually neutral, why would it delete the page for Al Gore III [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Al_Gore_III] while keeping the page for Mary Cheney [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney]? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Regarding Al Gore III: the article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_(8th_nomination) deleted in February 2008] after Wikipedians decided that they just couldn't write a biography of him that met the "biographies of living persons" and "notability (people)" standards. If you actually read the Wikitruth archived version you provided, you'll probably find out that it's full of gossip and doesn't explain ''why'' he's relevant to the world beyond being given his 15 news headlines of fame due to minor injuries and run-ins with the law. Furthermore, WP's people notability page states that "notability is not inherited" - in other words just because a certain person meets WP's notability standard doesn't mean that his/her friends, relatives, or associates are as well. Among all the sources cited in that "article", the sources that focus on him are about his legal run-ins, and the less distressing sources have him not as the focus of the article.
:::::On the other hand regarding Mary Cheney: the article does assert that she is relevant to society, as she has worked for Coors (one of the most prominent beer breweries in America) and the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign, and her "marriage" has been a subject of much debate in the news media given VP Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage. She also wrote an autobiography that was published in 2006.
:::::Thus, WP deleted the Al Gore III article but kept the Mary Cheney article because Cheney is so much more noted and discussed in the media than AG3 has been. BTW, I'll go on WP later and expand on AG3 on the Al Gore article.--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:56, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!
:JBS itself doesn't deny that it's hired AAPS members. Examples include Nathaniel Adamson, Ray Clark, and Arthur Crino. [http://www.jbs.org/index.php/about/john-birch-society-national-council].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 22:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
: For more about how WP deals with these "Criticism/Controversy" sections read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Wikipedia's guideline on including Criticism] --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:Please read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Everything you level as accusations is freely admitted and explained. And incidentally, Wikipedia is not regarded as a factual or trustworthy reference source by most educators and experts. Try to use it as a source on a term paper and you will more than likely get called on it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" reference with regards to the scientific/academic community, and by no means is CP. Any website that is openly editable is inherently un-trustowrthy for academia. Wikipedia, however, is a trustworthy reference for the average user, the user who wants a good overview of the subject in question, the user that wants the facts with as little bias or spin as possible. Wikipedia never claims to be an academic resource (and no decent academic would ever consider it as such, even in highschool, wikipedia is never considerd a "citable" source) but rather a means to get the "gist" of a topic and a gateway to more reliable sources. Do not try and put words in the wikipedia mission statement. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== John Edwards ==
Wikipedia is getting hammered over its censorship of the “John Edwards love child” story [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal] [http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052379/posts] [http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/]. This story has a gossipy feel and Conservapedia discourages gossip. However, several different outlets have reported it. I think it should be included as an example of wiki’s bias, but would like to know what other people think because of the gossipy nature of the story. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:An entry I made about John Edwards was deleted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=493702&oldid=493701]. This nature of this story is gossipy, but this page is primarily about bias in wikipedia. It’s worth mentioning that wikipedia allows gossipy stories with no credible sources about McCain because he is a Republican, but censors a similar credible story about Edwards because he is a Democrat. Is there a way the entry could be reworded so that it is acceptable? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 18:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You're so right that Wikipedia promotes gossip about conservatives, but immediately deletes it about liberals. This does illustrate Wikipedia's liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:After the John Edwards hotel story became common knowledge, some wikipedia editors attempted to add it to his page. However, a wikipedia administrator deleted that information and locked the page to prevent the story from being included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&diff=228426613&oldid=228425805]. Locking the pages of liberals when critical stories appear about them in the media is standard operating procedure at wikipedia. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::As of the time I'm writing this, Wikipedia's article on Edwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228904206#2008_Presidential_campaign has]:
::"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62]"
::So now that the ''real'' non-tabloid media has gotten to that story, editors have accepted addition of this information as long as this isn't given undue weight. Whew, we just got saved from another stigma on this page! Now, I'd like to make it clear that me & most other WP editors frown upon tabloids (e.g. ''National Enquirer'', ''New York Post'', ''The Sun'') as sources. Regarding "gossip about conservatives": what suddenly came to my mind was that infamous ''[[New York Times]]'' article that accused [[John McCain]] of having an affair with Vicki Iseman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=228831017 WP's article on McCain] makes absolutely no mention of Iseman, but it ''is'' mentioned in WP's article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times&oldid=222054349#John_McCain-lobbyist_article_criticism "Criticism of The New York Times"].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Furthermore, Wikipedia tries hard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.nationalenquirer.com not to source] the ''NatEnq'' in articles. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreeing with this article==
I have to disagree with the statements made in this article, mainly because the people who are writing it have a strong conservative bias, (it seems to assume that all liberals are wrong and immoral, and that their opinions aren't valid) and that Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is not a single entity that creates, reviews, and edits articles, it is millions of people across the globe. With that kind of userbase, bias will be inevitable. It is up to others to notice and repair that bias, as long as they add a properly sourced opinion for the other side, and that they keep original opinions intact. You see, if YOU spot bias, YOU can fix it. For example, for #11, just go fix it! The biography is a valid source, since it is a book and had to be published which has far less margin for error than, let's say, a blog. So just edit the article to say that some claim he is racist, cite the source, leave the so-called "liberal" opinion so it isn't conservatively biased, and you're done! Bias eliminated. A bias is favoring an opinion, whether it be "right" or "wrong", and lack of bias is showing all opinions. Conservapedia has a strong conservative bias, and it should recognize that, and understand that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and understand the opinions of liberals and why they hold them, even if they disagree. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 15:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, "right and wrong is" NOT "in the eye of the beholder," and Wikipedia is ruled by a liberal mob. Trying to fix something there is like trying to reason with a lynch mob. I think several of our points demonstrate what happens when someone tries to correct the bias to certain entries.

: It takes affirmative steps, like laws and even-handed enforcement of them, to prevent lynch mobs from forming. Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable.

: As to Conservapedia, it discloses its point of view. Wikipedia should be honest and do the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::First point, Liberals think that their ideas are "right", and conservatives are "wrong", and conservatives think the exact same thing about liberals. All right and wrong is is an opinion in itself. For instance, I believe that abortion, for instance, is wrong, since it kills a child, while another person over there might think that my ideas are wrong, and that outlawing abortion would strip freedom of choice from women. So the definitions of right and wrong are different from person to person, so really, they are "in the eye of the beholder."

::Second point, lynch mobs? WP goes by consensus when there's a conflict, but you can't compare that to a lynch mob. The United States of America does that during an election, which elects those who will make decisions in our government based on consensus, and the ancient Romans decided on consensus as well back when they were a republic. Lynch mobs act on their own sense of vigilante justice, and care not for consensus.

::Third point, "Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable." Well, I don't really think that Conservapedia can really say that they do either, can they? And what WP does about curbing this is relying on the editors to do the corrections. Pointing out bias doesn't mean that Wikipedia condones it, it just means no one has got around to fixing it.

::If you try to blame Wikipedia for being liberally biased, all you are doing is blaming the editors, who, invariably, have different opinions. WP cannot be blamed for the stuff that gets put on it, since WP does not put it on there, editors do. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 12:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Just because everyone subjectively '''thinks''' that they are right (after all, how can one possibly believe something and simultaneuously consider that belief wrong?) that doesn't make right and wrong subjective. Some issues truly can be called matters of opinion (i.e. not right or wrong, and no real "incorrect" either). However the "conservative" position (& therefore CP's '''acknowledged''' position) is that right & wrong are objective, absolute issues. The "liberal" position of existentialism (which you apparently subscribe to) is ''practiced'' (sort of) on WP but not acknowledged. Ironically, subscribing to the existenitalist/subjective view disallows you from disagreeing with conservative/objective view.

:::Also, you idealise WP somewhat - and reveal a sizable dose of naivetee - if you truly believe what you posted about "consensus" and "no one has got around to fixing it". As one who has seriously attempted to "fix it" and to build consensus I can tell you that that is simply not how WP works, which is what most of the items in this article demonstrate. You also falsely separate WP from its editors; WP ''is'' the body of its editors/admins/oversight. They write the articles, they write the guidelines, they write the policies, they mediate and arbitrate disputes, they grant and remove editor rights.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

==Baraminology==
"The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist. [6]"

Interestingly, that doesn't seem to be what the Wikipedia article said as of 07:21, 25 July 2008:

<blockquote>Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]</blockquote>

As far as I'm aware, the lack of peer-revied scientific research claim is correct, and worth noting. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I have read somewhere (I don't remember where, so I can't cite it) that there has been one peer-reviewed research study on baraminology that has been published so far. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 09:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==Curse the darkness, or light a candle?==

I've got to thinking, why do we curse the darkness when we could just light a candle? Instead of coming here to complain about examples of bias on Wikipedia, why not just edit them out when you find them? [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

: Because that has been attempted by many of us, only to find the edits diluted or censored and bias reinserted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Founder of The Weather Channel removed from Category:Global Warming skeptics==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118

100+ scientists, and other global warming skeptics were removed from the category:Global Warming skeptics, because wikipedia decided to delete the category -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 21:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Fascinating, Deborah. Perhaps that should be made into a point here somehow. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the reason why Wikipedia decided to delete the category was that its "overcategorization" guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Overcategorization&oldid=233793984#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue discourages] categorizing people by personal opinions on certain subjects.

== Pinochet and Castro ==
While the part about Castro is worth mentioning, we shouldn't exactly be quick to defend Pinochet. After 9/11 when they were investigating all sorts of money laundering schemes, the United States Senate discovered a huge network of money laundering accounts run by Pinochet and Sen. [[Norm Coleman]] referred to him in the [http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=233631 same report] as "a well-known human rights violator and violent dictator." It would be better to leave Pinochet out of the bullet point and focus on Castro. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:24, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== POV on this ==

I think this article's tone should be edited. It tries to slam liberals on everything, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. I do agree that something needs to be done though.
[[User:RussellSprouts|RussellSprouts]] 20:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT) (Sorry forgot to sign)
==Misrepresentations==
I don't expect anything to change, but I feel I should point out a few problems with this page nevertheless:
:2: [deletion of GW skeptics category] The category was deleted because it was poorly defined, not to whitewash. The weather channel guy's article still makes clear his opinion on the subject.
:3: [Claims in the Gardisil article] The claims are backed up by reliable sources. Until they are contradicted by other reliable sources, I'm not sure what one would expect to do about this.
:8: [Removal of claims about John Edwards] The Edwards affair was left out when the only source was the Enquirer, which WP does not consider reliable (for obvious reasons). It was added in very short order, and now the affair has an article of its own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair].
:9: [Cold fusion] Cold fusion is controversial, and the article makes no claim that it has been successfully carried out. I fail to see what "liberal" about cold fusion. If it can be performed, it would solve a great proportion of the world's energy problems. That is not a partisan issue.
:11: [Avoiding the word "controversy" for liberals] The Jane Fonda article has sections clearly labeled "Vietnam War Controversy" and "Hanoi Jane".
:12 and 16 are basically redundant, and inaccuracies on Conservapedia are cited.
:20: [Article on gun politics] The phrase in question is a caption for a photograph, the photograph is not provided as "proff" for anything. The fact that the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights shows that guns were a political issue.
:21: [Expelled as a propaganda film] The film is no longer in that category.
:50: [North American Union] There is now an article on this.
There many are others that aren't even worth addressing, though I feel I should mention the BCE issue, as it if oft cited. If you have any questions about the preferred use, type "4 BCE" into the search box at Wikipedia and see what you are redirected to. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 12:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

===Improvements?===
Over the past month or so I've also tried improving certain wikipedia entries based on some concerns raised by editors of this page.
*[[Marcus Borden]]: Since the section regarding the controversy over his prayer wasn't sourced, I researched on it and rewrote based on sourced. Additionally, I removed the biased language in question and instead focused on showing the reader the facts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Brunswick_Public_Schools&oldid=233151082#Football_coach_prayer_controversy]
*[[James Monroe]]: I added this: "During his presidency, Congress demanded high subsidies for internal improvements, such as for the Cumberland Road.[2] Monroe vetoed the Cumberland Road Bill, which provided for yearly improvements to the road, because he believed it to be "unconstitutional" for the government to pass such a bill.[3]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=238834883#Policies]
*Philadelphia lawyer: Clarified that the Zenger case merely ''inspired'' the term.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_lawyer&oldid=229926894]--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 21:47, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Also regarding some other issues raised on this talk page and the main page:
*Profanity: The profanity policy I provided states that profanity in quotes can never be censored. Most of the time it's okay to paraphrase a quote that contains a profanity for the sakes of taste, and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to include uncensored profanity when all other choices are lost (i.e. the title of some vulgar songs).
*Bias for evolution and against intelligent design, without disclosing? Actually Wikipedia has FAQ pages regarding why articles about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ evolution] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ intelligent design] are written that way; it's that Wikipedia is following the scientific consensus accepting evolution and rejecting ID. I recall Aschlafly stating on a talk page that "Wikipedia should imply its POV" just like Conservapedia [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|does]] too.
*[[Benazir Bhutto]] and abortion: Bhutto's pro-life stance was added on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benazir_Bhutto&diff=196024457&oldid=195739121 March 5, 2008] and remained on the article afterwards. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 17:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Cause of Bias -- Lack of Oversight? ==

I have recently been concerned over an extreme bias shown by Wikipedia editors on the English version of their web page describing the Falun Gong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_gong] cult. This cult originated in China and has been the subject of many debates regarding how the Falun Gong followers have been treated by the Chinese government. What caught my attention is that there are material facts about the cult which are not discussed on the Wikipedia page. Digging into the mystery of the omissions, I examined the related "Discussions" page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong]. I found that others have raised the issue of bias and missing information. However, the moderators refuse to allow any information critical of the Falun Gong onto the main page. For example, Falun Gong teaches that its practitioners can gain super-human powers such as levitation and clairvoyance and that there are two-billion year-old nuclear reactors in Africa [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922644]. Of course, there are more concerning omissions from the Wikipedia site than these strange beliefs. Their leader, Li Hongzhi, a former government grain department clerk and amateur trumpet player, claims demons and extraterrestrials are everywhere and that practitioners truly adhering to the cult's principles won't be hurt as much when hit by speeding cars as they otherwise would [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922644].

Instead, all that is said of the cult is that it is so harmless and pure. I have tried posting my concerns on the Wikipedia discussions page in recent days. My posts were deleted within minutes of submitting. This is frightening in that there are some individuals who rely on Wikipedia, for good or for ill, as a reliable source of information.
==DOMA and Prop 8==
Quick FYI. by law, in a FEDERAL government like ours, the definition of marriage is for the states to do, as it should be. Some states allow girls to marry at 14, others at 16, and others at 18. some states have the same ages for boys to marry as for girls. Still other states they are different ages. As a conservative, it's important to me that the Federal government does not overstep its authority to regulate things and become "big government". (this comment, by the way, has nothing to do with the prop 8 election which is exactly where this issue belongs. in the hands of the '''voters''' of each state! (ie, not the COURTs which like to step in)--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 15:39, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

: JeanJacques, you're entitled to your opinion, but your preface "as a conservative" is misplaced. The overwhelming percentage of conservatives do support DOMA. What's next, for you to say that "as a conservative" you're "pro-choice"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:19, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Pope XIII? ==

Isn't that just simple vandalism? Vandalism ''you could have fixed'' instead of rambling here about how Wikipedia professes hatred by mockingly creating pages linking to him? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it vandalism? How can we be so sure about that noncited accusation of AlanS? 'I could have changed', I wouldn't contribute to them if you paid me. It is a pattern, ranked too darn high (no. 3), must have been there along time with the help of enabler and collaborator Google. Just change it, just vandalism Alan says. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 18:25, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I think he meant it was vandalism at WP, not here. It seems to be a bunch of non-registered user who keep vandalizing it, but people seem to change it back often. As for not contributing, well, I suppose the "light a candle or curse the darkness" quote kind of applies. We probably shouldn't cite the WP article itself, since it doesn't always support the point. Maybe cite one of the differences instead? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: It was there all of nine days, as one can easily see from the history. That is not "along [sic] time". It's nothing more than vandalism of the Wikipedia redirect. And AlanS is right: you ''could'' have fixed it. That you ''choose'' not to doesn't change that fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: We've discussed how Wikipedia will leave up some "vandalism", while reverting others. It's an example of Wikipedia's bias how some vandalism will remain while others are reverted immediately. You can bet many editors saw that edit during the nine days it remained, and left it there. It's irrelevant whether an outsider could have reverted it; the point here is to illustrate the bias of the editors who run Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: It was a redirect page. Very few editors have redirect pages on their watchlist. Vandalism to a redirect page could go unnoticed for some time. Furthermore, it was vandalism by an IP, so there is no basis for saying that the editors who "run" Wikipedia had anything to do with it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Many editors in control of Wikipedia watch the recent changes and revert nearly all vandalism immediately. But as this (and other) examples illustrate, some liberal vandalism is left unreverted by those editors.

:::: This is a clear example of liberal bias at Wikipedia. Admittedly, bias-by-omission is slightly more abstract than bias-by-action, but the point is precisely the same and it's a mistake to exclude this type of illustration of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: I didn't realise that Superman was an editor in control of Wikipedia. In about the last four minutes, there's been about 500 changes to Wikipedia (about two edits per second) so I have trouble understanding how they could possibly even read the recent changes list, let alone check out every edit. So no, although I totally agree that there is "liberal" bias at Wikipedia, this is not a clear example of it. On the contrary, it's a lousy example of it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Update, somebody changed Bill Oreilly/ Wikipedia link on Google. Still listed number three, still providing a link url of Pope Pius, still linking to Bill's article. Page title changed to Bill Oreilly instead Pope Pius. Still disrespectful, if somebody corrects I can monitor if it returns.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I don't think that's changed at all. Google indexing entries are created automatically; they don't have people changing them manually (well, not for 99.9999% of them). The Google cache shows that it was indexed on 22nd October, during the time Wikipedia's redirect page pointed to Bill Oreilly, which was the case before, so although I don't recall the actually date of it before, I'd say it hasn't changed at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== If you think wikipedia is biased towards liberals... ==

Why don't you work to fix it? It's nobody's fault but your own, because instead of actively going out and making changes to wikipedia (which is the point of wikipedia), you just sit on your [] and complain about it.
[[User:Bibendum|Bibendum]] 21:37, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:That has been asked and answered numerous times on this page, I believe. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:Because I'm feeling helpful, and I just had this same question: here's a thread from the archives that might shed some light: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive6#Take_a_step_back]. Enjoy! --[[User:Xanthippe|Xanthippe]] 00:02, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, I knew it was there somewhere. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== 'Chain of being' ==

<s>RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 29 October 2008 (EDT)</s>

: Philip, did you post this here by accident?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ummm, yep. It should have been on the [[Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution]] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:31, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

If there is a page on bias on Wikipedia, than why isn't there something similar on Conservapedia? One of your sysops admitted that Conservapedia has a conservative bias. If this site is to be trustworthy and unbiased, there should be such a page.--[[User:DM333|DM333]] 20:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== NAS ==
Articles associated with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars "National Association of Scholars"] are often a target of bias from [[liberal]] tag-team gangs. Ever since I read his book [http://books.google.com/books?id=NN7E3r_w09IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Myth+of+the+scientific+method&ei=iehDSf6nCY3WlQSNkdjGDg ''...the Myth of the Scientific Method''], I've always had a great deal of respect for the author/scientist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer Henry H. Bauer]. The Bauer page is one example of an article associated with NAS on wikipedia. Others can be found by looking through the links to the Bauer and to NAS articles: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Henry_H._Bauer&limit=500] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/National_Association_of_Scholars&limit=500]. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Here's a link to a much earlier version of the NAS article right before it was mauled by [[liberal]]s: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Scholars&diff=202363151&oldid=202337351 "National Association of Scholars" (unbiased)] --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 13:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== What Lies by Wikipedia about Conservapedia? ==

according to the first entry; "Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence"

what are the "Four Unsupported Smears"? I read the first sentence, and it seems reasonable to me.

: If you don't see the smears, then I'm afraid that is most informative about your viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:12, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't really agree. the first sentence contains statements of fact. YEC, american etc. I don't wee what is a smear about that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: The four terms in the first sentence are pejorative, particularly with respect to Wikipedia's audience. "right-wing"??? Please. The first sentence is also unsupported and unjustified, and thereby violates Wikipedia's own rules. We do not impose a point of view here.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:25, 14 December 2008 (EST)
::::"''Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian point of view.''" Lets review the claims.
::::1. English Language -- true
::::2. wiki based -- true
::::3. Web encyclopedia project -- true
::::4. Young Earth Creationist -- We at least support the YEC position
::::5. Americentric -- maybe.
::::6. right-wing -- I think so. If we created a visual representation of the political spectrum, where would CP land?
::::7. Conservative Christian --I don't see this one as a negative, and if we aren't then we should be.
::::The claims may or may not be strictly true, but I think that from the outside, they appear to be.
::::What about the POV that Obama is a muslim? we impose that one pretty strictly. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:59, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Apart from the negative tone of the wikipedia lede (lead), it misses the mark. The connotation is off. Happens a lot with wikipedia articles. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 21:18, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::::In furtherance of Rick's observation, Tim, you apparently misunderstand this project and do not describe it accurately. We provide the truth and do not "impose" any point of view. If you can find any statement by me, or other Bureaucrat, or even senior Admin, that supports your claims above (#4-7), then I'd like to see it. I don't think it exists, and Wikipedia offers no support for its smear. I suggest you retract your unsupported claims, just as Wikipedia should.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:40, 14 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly, if Conservapedia is not right-wing, what is it? I'm actually really confused right now. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 19:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Wikipedia doesn't say that "Conservapedia" is a "conservative encyclopedia" as the name suggests. Instead, Wikipedia tries to smear Conservapedia with unjustified, pejorative terms that is ''not'' representative of the name, the rules, or the content. This is a clear example of how Wikipedia does insist on a liberal and unsupported POV to smear people. See the main page for yet another recent example.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:16, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::What is the difference between being conservative and being right-wing? Its seems this site uses Liberal and Left-wing pretty much interchangeably, I would assume that right and left refer to the political spectrum. --[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 21:21, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::SJames, you'd do yourself a favor if you opened your mind and learned from this site. 2+2=4 is not "right wing," and neither is the truth you'll find here. But you have free will to deny both, so suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Not to worry, my mind is open. I understand right-wing may incorporate some of the far-right extremists, but to me, the terminology in itself carries no negative connotations. It's just reference to one half of the political spectrum. It's like the Boston Celtics objecting to being referred to as an "Eastern Conference team" because they don't want to be associated with the likes of the Charlotte Bobcats or the general inferiority of the Eastern Conference (though this year has been different!). My point is that there is no need to be defensive about it. If people ask me, "Are your beliefs on the right-wing?", I'll answer without taking offense, "Yes" and then clarify, "--Conservative Christian". [[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:53, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::I personally dont find the words wikipedia uses inaccurate (they are most certainly true), and i really feel the words there have negative connotations (nothing negative in right-wing to me or the others) but thats certainly subjective. --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 21:01, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::I'm curious now too: ''why is it'' called Conservapedia then? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:58, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::You Don't try to impose any Point of View? Thats Funny, because I had stuff deleted on here earlier and was temporarily blocked from editing.
::::::And I don't get what you are saying is misleading or smearing in there? Are you trying to argue that this wiki isn't from a Right-wing, Conservative Christian, YEC and Americentric Point of View? Its called CONSERVAPEDIA for Allah's Sake! That was the point I was trying to get across in the beginning from asking this question, not to be a jerk and get my stuff deleted and banned or whatever. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 22:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Lawrence Solomon==
Lawrence Solomon, the author of the 2008 book [[The Deniers]], wrote back in April 2008 an editorial piece titled [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/4/18/hide-your-name-on-wicked-pedia-solomon.aspx "Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon"] about what newcomers to wikipedia should expect when they try to correct [[liberal]] bias. His experience was not pleasant. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Article on Biblical Criticism==
In wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism Biblical Criticism] the [[Oxford Univeristy]]-Press-published referenced section regarding those who are interested in biblical criticism and hold to supernatural beliefs was removed. The phrasing of supernatural beliefs came from the [[Oxford University]] Press-Published book. Despite claims that removing well-referenced material is unacceptable, it has not been restored. It is clear that wikipedia does not enforce its "policies" on references. See here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&diff=259607288&oldid=259533753] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&diff=259236232&oldid=259205856].--[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:28, 24 December 2008 (EST)

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== DRUDGE BIAS ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it.

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-26T15:45:19Z

RobertWDP: /* The Gunpowder Plot */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-26T03:48:49Z

RobertWDP: /* The Gunpowder Plot */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-26T03:42:33Z

RobertWDP: /* The Gunpowder Plot */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Suggestions by some are that Cecil sought to gain whether the plot succeeded or not, as either way it would result in greater persecution of Catholics in the country as some argue was his motive. The argument is that he then devised and put the plot into action, and so whilst his motives may have been such, there is little doubt that those directly responsible for carrying out the plot had every intention of destroying Parliament and the King. And so, even if Cecil was involved then the plot was still very much real. It would have been impossible given the vast amounts of evidence from so many sources for a single person, or for that matter even quite a large number of people, to completely make up such an event in history. The plot was undeniably real, the question the dictionary raises is over the real motives of a suspected instigator. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-26T02:15:21Z

RobertWDP: /* The Gunpowder Plot */ new section

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-25T03:29:26Z

RobertWDP: /* Questions */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-24T02:45:42Z

RobertWDP: /* Questions */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-24T01:14:35Z

RobertWDP: /* Questions */ new section

User talk:RobertWDP

2009-03-02T20:21:11Z

RobertWDP: /* Global Warming */

{{Welcome|sig=--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]}}

Your edits are not primarily "factual;" they take issue with the presentation of the subject, which is based on ideological premises. Note that Conservapedia does not support a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) like Wikipedia does, but rather a conservative, Christian, <s>YEC</s> one. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

*Had to (above strike), Economist, as Mr. Schlafly maintains that will not be our ''emphasis'', insofar as religion goes. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::My apologies TK; I assumed that Conservapedia's stated POV was similar to that of CreationWiki, which explicitly endorses YEC. I'll keep that in mind. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

==Global Warming==
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.

And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the public does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

User talk:RobertWDP

2009-03-02T20:20:53Z

RobertWDP: /* Global Warming */

{{Welcome|sig=--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]}}

Your edits are not primarily "factual;" they take issue with the presentation of the subject, which is based on ideological premises. Note that Conservapedia does not support a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) like Wikipedia does, but rather a conservative, Christian, <s>YEC</s> one. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

*Had to (above strike), Economist, as Mr. Schlafly maintains that will not be our ''emphasis'', insofar as religion goes. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::My apologies TK; I assumed that Conservapedia's stated POV was similar to that of CreationWiki, which explicitly endorses YEC. I'll keep that in mind. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

==Global Warming==
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.

And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the publice does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

User talk:RobertWDP

2009-03-02T20:20:32Z

RobertWDP: /* Global Warming */

{{Welcome|sig=--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]}}

Your edits are not primarily "factual;" they take issue with the presentation of the subject, which is based on ideological premises. Note that Conservapedia does not support a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) like Wikipedia does, but rather a conservative, Christian, <s>YEC</s> one. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

*Had to (above strike), Economist, as Mr. Schlafly maintains that will not be our ''emphasis'', insofar as religion goes. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::My apologies TK; I assumed that Conservapedia's stated POV was similar to that of CreationWiki, which explicitly endorses YEC. I'll keep that in mind. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

==Global Warming==
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.

And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the publice does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Global warming

2009-03-02T19:35:30Z

RobertWDP: my apologies for reverting an admin, but i cannot sit back and watch this man being libelled here. Criticise by all means, but only with the evidence to justify claims.

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
'''Global warming''' is a term generally used to describe an increase in the global average surface (air at surface) temperature.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

The term is most often used to refer to the modern period of global warming, an increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when instrumental measurements began to be taken and organized records began to be kept. Although only a small increase in absolute terms, the temperature increase is unprecedented within at least the last 14,000 years according to the reconstructions by Viau et al. (2006) <ref>http://www.citeulike.org/user/kmcolo/article/618203 Viau et al. (2006) 'Millennial-scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene' in Journal of Geophysical Research, 111</ref> and can have a significant impact upon the earth. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship. Despite this, there is no completely proven model explaining the rise in global temperatures.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

==Controversy==

{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

==Politics of Global Warming==

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the successful completion of a lawsuit against his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

Geology professor and scientist at the University of Oklahoma, [[David Deming]] talks about a biased [[AP]] article mentioning global warming "...whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>
The mean global temperature, at least as measured by is now the same as it was in the year 1980.
In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising.
Sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.
Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low.

Also in discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho says, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

In rebuke to the issue of sun-spots specifically, Ruddiman states that sun-spot activity could only explain one tenth to half of the temperature increase observed over the past century. <ref> Ruddiman (2000) Earth's Climate: Past and Future. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York</ref>
The natural orbital cycles which affect the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface occur in cycles that at their shortest are at least 10,000 years long. As such these cycles alone are far too slow-acting to explain the temperature change observed in the past century and at best could explain only a tiny fraction of it. In fact, some of the cycles are at such a stage presently that they should be reducing the level of solar radiation reaching the earth and as such would be lowering temperatures.

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

*Al Gore is therefore an example of how in such an important debate, [[deceit|deceitful]] tactics have been used by liberals to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html Leguea of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Socialism and global warming]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


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

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
Subscript text

User talk:RobertWDP

2009-03-02T19:31:38Z

RobertWDP: /* Global Warming */

Global warming

2009-03-02T17:57:38Z

RobertWDP: the point clearly states which issues it addresses, not fair to criticise the author because he hasn't addressed all the issues raised here. Any lack of research will speak for itself.

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
'''Global warming''' is a term generally used to describe an increase in the global average surface (air at surface) temperature.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

The term is most often used to refer to the modern period of global warming, an increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when instrumental measurements began to be taken and organized records began to be kept. Although only a small increase in absolute terms, the temperature increase is unprecedented within at least the last 14,000 years according to the reconstructions by Viau et al. (2006) <ref>http://www.citeulike.org/user/kmcolo/article/618203 Viau et al. (2006) 'Millennial-scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene' in Journal of Geophysical Research, 111</ref> and can have a significant impact upon the earth. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship. Despite this, there is no completely proven model explaining the rise in global temperatures.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

==Controversy==

{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==

It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

==Politics of Global Warming==

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the successful completion of a lawsuit against his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

Geology professor and scientist at the University of Oklahoma, [[David Deming]] talks about a biased [[AP]] article mentioning global warming "...whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>
The mean global temperature, at least as measured by is now the same as it was in the year 1980.
In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising.
Sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.
Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low.

Also in discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho says, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

In rebuke to the issue of sun-spots specifically, Ruddiman states that sun-spot activity could only explain one tenth to half of the temperature increase observed over the past century. <ref> Ruddiman (2000) Earth's Climate: Past and Future. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York</ref>
The natural orbital cycles which affect the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface occur in cycles that at their shortest are at least 10,000 years long. As such these cycles alone are far too slow-acting to explain the temperature change observed in the past century and at best could explain only a tiny fraction of it. In fact, some of the cycles are at such a stage presently that they should be reducing the level of solar radiation reaching the earth and as such would be lowering temperatures.

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

*Al Gore is therefore an example of how in such an important debate, [[deceit|deceitful]] tactics have been used by liberals to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.{{cn}}

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html Leguea of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Socialism and global warming]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


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

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
Subscript text

Republican Party

2009-03-01T23:56:46Z

RobertWDP: far far too vague a statement, needs more detail and clarification as to its meaning if it's to be included

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Michael Steele]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The former [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]] is a Republican. The party is the U.S.'s major center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants, while the [[Democrats]] appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups.

The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate [[Arizona]] [[Senator]] [[John McCain]], together with his running mate [[Alaskan|Alaska]] [[Governor]] [[Sarah Palin]] lost the 2008 presidential election to [[Democrat]] [[Barack Obama]] and his running mate [[Joe Biden]].

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]

The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 10 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, and 1996). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

[[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).

The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.

==Presidential dominance==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]
In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).

From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.

Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).

John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.

It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.

The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.

Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.

In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)

*Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.
*Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.
*FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.
*Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.
*McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.
*Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.
*GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.

Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Famous Republicans==
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974) Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924) Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]
*[[Richard Nixon]], (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals
*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]], (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Alphonso Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)
*[[George H.W. Bush]] President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)
*[[George W. Bush]] President of the United States, (2001 - present)
*[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]] Vice-presidential nominee, 2008

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]

Talk:Liberal Bias in Popular Dictionaries

2009-03-01T16:35:32Z

RobertWDP: /* Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal */

Gents, this list is very much work in progress. Please feel free to add more examples but stick to popular dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Marriam-Webster. I think directly quoting dictionary entries would maintain the integrity of the examples here, but only the meaning we're concentrating on needs to be quoted. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 12:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Why don't we see how they define creationism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 12:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

::Aha! The OED's definition is clearly mentions an alternative "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, '''rather than by natural processes such as evolution'''" So, in the evolution definition there is no mention of its controvosy, however in the creationism definition the alternative is presented. I would be interested to see if this is prevalent in other dictionaries? I only have the OED to hand, though I may go to the local libraray and have a browse. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 13:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Now how does it define [[Conservative]]? (I would look up myself if I had one!) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't in the political sense, but I think this is because its a British based dictionary and conservative means something different over there. (ie the British conservative party is far more left than an american conservative would be, and it's secular.)[[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 15:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Definition vs. Connotation of Liberal==
I would be careful with this one. The definition of liberal is not an actual set of positions on specific issues, but rather a relatively vague political ideology of change from the status quo. If you consider the history of the word "liberal" and "liberalism" you will see that its connotation (aka the specific positions of those labeled liberals) has changed quite a bit. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century (in the times of Bismarck, Lenin, Mussolini etc) liberals were in fact those who opposed government involvement in the economy, something which is considered quite a liberal stance today. If you consider the full history of these terms, the strongest constant is that liberal was used to describe those who wished some departure from the established order, whatever that order may be. Thus I would state that the definition given by MW (although the personal liberty aspect could be challenged effectively) is about as accurate of a definition, without connotation, as I can think of. Something to consider.--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:I would agree with the above. This site has formed a set in stone opinion of what a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' believe. This is not to mention the slight differences in meaning between countries, and bear in mind this is a British based dictionary. It is not so much the actual issues that define the political ideology, but it is the principles behind the issues. For example, with abortion, it is not the case that liberals have simply decided they are for it and conservatives are against it. That is far far too simplistic. Opinions are formed based upon a set of beliefs that a person has on the principles behind this, such as individual liberty, particularly weighing up the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. The use of the terms here has jumped straight to the conclusions rather than using the reasoning behind them as the definition. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:59, 25 February 2009 (EST)

::Having looked into this further I would in fact propose the deletion of this article. I have online access to the most detailed and up-to-date OED in which it does state that evolution is a theory. This is not to mention my above points and the fact that conservatism is defined. I believe all of the issues in the article have been adequately addressed and especially since it is based upon one dictionary it seems odd to keep the article. This is not to mention that nobody has provided a reasonable explanation as to why a dictionary of all things would show any significant political bias. People may dispute a few entries but that does not constitute a general bias by any means. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Not having the OED, I cannot verify what RobertWDP has stated regarding the evolution entry, but if it does indeed state that it is a theory, then the entry in the article really has no place. I still stand by my first entry regarding the Liberal entry. Some administrator discussion would be appreciated as to keep the article in its present state is not accurate or factual. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: For both public editions of the OED I have (both the paper copy and the free online copy)this article is true. I see no evidence of your claims RobertWDP since the source you cited requires you to pay to view! Surley the editions that most of the general public will see are the most influential ones and thus any bias in them will have a greater effect. [[User:GFasten|GFasten]] 11:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)

::My apologies for the citation in question, I had forgotten that access was via subscription. However, although you may well be right that most people will see other versions, the actual question of why there would be 'liberal bias' in dictionaries is not addressed. Personally it seems like a very odd claim, nowhere is there any explanation as to why the OED of all things would be 'liberally biased' and this of course feeds back into my point regarding the definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Also, the article only looks at a very few, very specific examples and it seems ludicrous to base claims of bias on just these few. There may well be definitions that would appear to be 'pro-conservative' for example. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:35, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2009-03-01T16:11:29Z

RobertWDP: /* Statistical analysis */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers List of female rock singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers List of female heavy metal singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors List of Australian Soap Opera actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors List of Australian TV actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers List of Australian Pop singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_musicians List of Canadian musicians].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_pop_musicians_of_the_2000s List of British Pop Musicians of the 2000's].

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately many of these are not broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Katy Cusack==
Ms. Cusack, according to the articles, was a stage actress only in the Austin area, and worked mainly at a clothing shop she owned. I don't think she should be counted as part of Hollywood. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:I plan on removing her from the list soon. I could be wrong, but I don't think she falls under the definition of a member of Hollywood. It would be nice if someone else could respond one way or the other. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Norwegian actress and porn star==

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that. [[user:DamianJohn]]

== Link to breast enhancment ? ==

a delicate subject to be sure but is there ant statistical link to show that actresses with breast cancer ALSO had breast enhancements which may have increased the risks ? just a thought [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: Seems unlikely and there are far larger studies of that issue with negative results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Statistical analysis ==

This came up on the recent changes and I was somewhat shocked by the fundamental mistakes underlying this apparent 'mystery'.

The article ONLY lists a very few cases of Hollywood (and even some who have nothing to do with Hollywood) actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively young age. They have been listed because they are below the average age for diagnosis, but as has been pointed out this figure is the mean, by definition it will have values above and below. There will also be many examples of Hollywood actresses diagnosed with the condition after the average age, and I expect that if an actual survey were done the average age of diagnosis when limited to hollywood actresses would be very close to the national average. However, this raises another fundamental flaw. The group in question is far too small in mathematical terms for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The definition of the group of people in question is also highly arbitrary making any sort of mathematical assessment of the group difficult. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

: Robert, please learn first here, then comment. Your statistical analysis above is completely wrong. Clusters within a group this size certainly are meaningful.

: By chance, you didn't work for tobacco companies a few decades ago, did you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::I can safely say I have never nor would I ever work for a tobacco company. My argument is that the statistics are not meaningful for the group size in question since for one thing the group size has not been accurately delimited. And for another the group has been selected by specifically identifying individual actresses that have been diagnosed at a young age. I'm sure there are hollywood actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively old age and certainly ages much closer to or above the average stated in the article, however this has not been accounted for and in statistical terms there is a pre-existing bias towards the younger victims before any analysis is actually undertaken. You yourself also acknowledge the lack of complete numbers of those diagnosed within hollywood. The statistics regarding actual risk also differ temporally and spatially. Obviously hollywood actresses come from across the world and so the statistics that are more relevant to them would be those from their places of origin. Even within the USA there is variation in the chance of suffering from breast cancer. The different times at which the featured actresses were diagnosed also raises issues since the risk statistics have changed over time whereas the articles simply groups them all together. (also as you shall see i have edited the title of this section from both my original and your edit, to better reflect the nature of this discussion. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. And there is another major flaw in your example. Whilst of course such a high rate would be alarming, the sample does not link with the rate you have provided since the rate is for non-smoker whilst the sample is strictly smokers. As such to try and make a comparison between that sample and that figure is impossible. Certainly with a larger sample you could compare the rates of lung cancer amongst smokers and non-smokers and would most definitely find it to be much higher amongst the former. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in hollywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. There is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2009-03-01T16:02:22Z

RobertWDP: /* Statistical analysis */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers List of female rock singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers List of female heavy metal singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors List of Australian Soap Opera actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors List of Australian TV actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers List of Australian Pop singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_musicians List of Canadian musicians].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_pop_musicians_of_the_2000s List of British Pop Musicians of the 2000's].

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately many of these are not broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Katy Cusack==
Ms. Cusack, according to the articles, was a stage actress only in the Austin area, and worked mainly at a clothing shop she owned. I don't think she should be counted as part of Hollywood. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:I plan on removing her from the list soon. I could be wrong, but I don't think she falls under the definition of a member of Hollywood. It would be nice if someone else could respond one way or the other. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Norwegian actress and porn star==

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that. [[user:DamianJohn]]

== Link to breast enhancment ? ==

a delicate subject to be sure but is there ant statistical link to show that actresses with breast cancer ALSO had breast enhancements which may have increased the risks ? just a thought [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: Seems unlikely and there are far larger studies of that issue with negative results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Statistical analysis ==

This came up on the recent changes and I was somewhat shocked by the fundamental mistakes underlying this apparent 'mystery'.

The article ONLY lists a very few cases of Hollywood (and even some who have nothing to do with Hollywood) actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively young age. They have been listed because they are below the average age for diagnosis, but as has been pointed out this figure is the mean, by definition it will have values above and below. There will also be many examples of Hollywood actresses diagnosed with the condition after the average age, and I expect that if an actual survey were done the average age of diagnosis when limited to hollywood actresses would be very close to the national average. However, this raises another fundamental flaw. The group in question is far too small in mathematical terms for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The definition of the group of people in question is also highly arbitrary making any sort of mathematical assessment of the group difficult. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

: Robert, please learn first here, then comment. Your statistical analysis above is completely wrong. Clusters within a group this size certainly are meaningful.

: By chance, you didn't work for tobacco companies a few decades ago, did you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::I can safely say I have never nor would I ever work for a tobacco company. My argument is that the statistics are not meaningful for the group size in question since for one thing the group size has not been accurately delimited. And for another the group has been selected by specifically identifying individual actresses that have been diagnosed at a young age. I'm sure there are hollywood actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively old age and certainly ages much closer to or above the average stated in the article, however this has not been accounted for and in statistical terms there is a pre-existing bias towards the younger victims before any analysis is actually undertaken. You yourself also acknowledge the lack of complete numbers of those diagnosed within hollywood. The statistics regarding actual risk also differ temporally and spatially. Obviously hollywood actresses come from across the world and so the statistics that are more relevant to them would be those from their places of origin. Even within the USA there is variation in the chance of suffering from breast cancer. The different times at which the featured actresses were diagnosed also raises issues since the risk statistics have changed over time whereas the articles simply groups them all together. (also as you shall see i have edited the title of this section from both my original and your edit, to better reflect the nature of this discussion. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in hollywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. There is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2009-03-01T15:59:41Z

RobertWDP: /* Statistical analysis */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you didn't ask me the question, so I didn't realize you wanted me to answer it, but ok. Before I do though, I will say that without a description of the method used, the reader is unable to make any informed judgment about whether there's cause for concern. That done, there are two things that I would want to see. First is whether the effect of Hollywood on breast cancer is statistically significant. Second, I would want to see an effect size. The first indicates the probability that any difference among Hollywood types is due to chance, and the second indicates how big the difference is. Both are needed. If there is a significant difference, but the effect size shows that the risk is (as an example) 2% higher, I wouldn't say that's particularly meaningful. Similarly, if the effect size shows that the risk is 100% higher but the p-value is .5 (ie, 50% chance that it's due to chance), I wouldn't make much of it. On the other hand, if it was significant and the effect size was on the order of a 10% increase in risk or more, I would think of that as meaningful. Notably, if your hypothesis is correct and there is a genuine effect, the effect size is likely to be closer to 10% higher than 100 or even 10x higher. Cancers are mostly determined by multiple risk factors so it's unlikely that one is going to account for all that much variance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the main problem is the assumption that stars who are diagnoed with breast cancer would try to cover it up. Unlike early stage Parkinson's disease, early stage breast cancer has a much smaller impact (if any) on the ability of a person to appear in a movie. Unlike Parkinson's diease (which cannot be cured) breast cancer can be treated, if the treatment is successful then the star can return to acting/singing, if not then signing a contract will be the least of their worries. So, using the example of Michael J. Fox really doesn't do anything to show that stars with breast cancer would cover it up, unless you've got some cold hard evidence of this then all of the statistics on this page are meaningless. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see a substantiv7:e answer above to the basic question. Did you?

: I'll try this way. Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. That is 100 times the expected incidence. Alarming? Or instead mock the person who points that out, and then send more women into the mine?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Was that ("I don't see a substantive answer") addressed to me? I gave a quite clear answer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

: I looked again and don't see a clear answer from you, or from Humblpi, StatsMsn, or anyone else here. So I'll ask the "yes" or "no" question one last time here: Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::ASchlafly, in the case of your hypothetical mine, the answer is an ''unreserved'' "of course not". But that is not a valid example, as in your story, you '''know''' the "number of women in the mine". In the case of young women in the entertainment business, an estimate of 50 is likely orders of magnitude short of reality - you don't "know the number of women in the mine". However, if you can figure out how many young women are in the entertainment business worldwide, you can contnue to test your thesis. But until then, simply stating "the number of women in the entertainment business worldwide is 50" is ''not'' an adequate answer. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I appreciate the candor of your response, while disagreeing that the figure of 50 touring female singers between about 22 about 30 is "orders of magnitude short of reality." Do you really think there are 5000 touring female singers between 22 and 30??? I doubt you could name even 50, even after much diligence and full use of the internet. But thanks for your response anyway.

::: Murray, StatsMsn, and other detractors here, what's your answer to the simple question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you genuinely think that I didn't answer before you either didn't understand or didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said a 10% increase and a sufficiently low p value. That couldn't be clearer. But fine, I'll do the research for you when I have the time, to clarify that 50 is a gross underestimate. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Murray, EngelUmpocker has answered the simple question. You have not. Do I need to ask it again? "Suppose a disease has an overall incidence of 1 in 1000. Suppose next that among 50 people who worked in a particular mine, 5 came down with the disease. Do you dismiss the data and continue sending more women into the mine? Yes or no, please."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::The rational answer is that it depends on the disease, and the likelihood that it could be related to mining. Based on working in close quarters, 80% of the women working in the same mine could catch the same case of chicken pox, but no one would suggest that mining causes chicken pox. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The list given on the previous page includes women being born in the 1940s. Shirley Temple was born in 1928. Going back to touring female singers who were between 22 and 30 with the same range can eaisly get 50 women. And so, as I grab the list I had before... Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, Betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell, Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco -- from just a quick sample of a few 'girl groups', some classic rock and a South American country. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I would recommend a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers list of Female Rock Singers on Wikipedia] (please set aside your distaste for that site for this one list - if nothing else, you can deride Wikipedia for being no use for anything other than 'good on rock music'!) - which contains over 400 singers at present. And that's just rock singers. But not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers Female Heavy Metal singers], which currently has 83 listed. What about jazz singers? Next, we have to include actresses, dancers, etc. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 19:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Engel, that says more about the quality control on Wikipedia than it does about Hollywood. [[User:ChadGreen|ChadGreen]] 20:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::No mater whether one has a 'problem' with Wikipedia or not, there's no denying these numbers - I personally know of at least half of them myself. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:08, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Wikipedia list is all ages, including many under 22 years old and too young to develop breast cancer yet. The Wikipedia list also includes non-touring singers who would have no reason to disclose breast cancer. And even with that, the list is nowhere near the 5000 you implied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I agree that I do not have the age breakdown of that list - and though the info is there, I simply don't have enough free time to do that. So I will freely grant that until someone does that research, we don't exactly know the population size. But let's guess that it's 200 out of the near 500 we see listed - that's not unreasonable. But this is a list of mostly US and UK singers. Where are the comparable lists of Japanese, Croatian and Italian singers, who also no doubt have a tendency to succumb to [[Hollywood Values]]? How do we find out about the number of 'young hopefuls' in millions of towns around the world, rehearsing with a band in a garage somewhere, but not famous enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but very likely 'partying' and in the right age range? And that's just rock and pop singers - we haven't covered rappers, actresses or TV 'people' (I'm guessing chat show hosts, weather girls, news readers, etc might be just as susceptible to [[Hollywood Values]]?. IMDB lists well over half a million actresses - but again, only a portion of those will be in the right age range. But a very large number will be, as the age range is the functioning age range for most actresses. So while I'm openly admitting all these flaws in my own data, can you at least admit that your guess of 50 is very likely to be orders of magnitude off? That the final numbers could easily be in the thousands or even tens of thousands internationally? As you asked me - yes or no? Is that possible? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: EngelUmpocker, I have an open mind about this, and don't have any ax to grind. But I don't see the existence of thousands of touring female singers in their 20s. I just don't. The market wouldn't support it. There may be only 50. Or perhaps 100 or 200. But much more than that? I'm open to the possibility, but just don't think it's that many. Even many famous rock bands struggle to have successful tours, and most rock stars seem to be male.

:::::::::: Your comment about playing in garages suggests you don't understand or agree with me about the emphasis on touring singers. Singers who play in garages are not going to have publicity about breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Me too on the open mind - I know I don't have the data, but like you I have a 'hunch' about the numbers, and since our hunches are so different, I want to see if we can find a way to agree on the possible ''range'' of numbers if nothing else. Let's look at the phenomenon of 'Girl Groups' just for a moment - all girl pop groups. Spice Girls (5 members), Destiny's Child (3), Dream (4), Play (4), B*Witched (4), Eternal (3), En Vogue (4), SWV (3), Sugar jones (5), No Secrets (5), No Angels (4), Pussycat Dolls (5), Girls Aloud (5), Sugababes (3), Bardot (4), Eden's Crush (5) and The Cheetah Girls (3). A total of 69 young women, successful, all within the age range, and touring. If that's the case with just a few "Western' 'Girl Groups', can you imagine how many more young women around the world are in the business? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 14:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
----

:: Indeed it would be alarming. And all the parts are given there - in particular, the size of the population in question. And so we must now find out how many Australian, European, American, Latin American, South American ... singers, day time television stars, actresses, and models at some minimum level of fame (admit it - you don't know who 75% of the people in the list are) there are of various ages over the past 5 decades. At that point you can start looking at how many people are working in that particular mine. I would contend that for the population given that covers the list given, it is in the tens of thousands of people. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, your model is perfectly correct, and that would certainly reveal a fundamental problem. However,there's a fundamental difference between your example and your proposed case. In your case, you don't know how many people are 'in the mine'. If there are a hundred times the number of people in the mine than you think, then the problem is a hundred times less severe than you've imagined. And you are simply 'saying' that there's 50 rock singers in the whole world. Since I can think of 50 rock singer girls between the age of 18-45 in the city of Akron, Ohio alone, I think your population estimate is '''wildly''' wrong. And if your test population is much bigger, the problem is smaller. At a guess, I would say you re out by at the very least a factor of 1,000. If you want the redaer's here to start listing candidates, we can certainly start doing so, but the list will become very, very long. And then there's actresses. All over the world. [[User:JerryMander|JerryMander]] 16:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Working with Mr. Schlafly's 50 under 30 estimate, I've compiled a list of 50 of the best selling female music stars under 30 years old (born after May 1978). This is not an exact list, but all of the following are among the 50 most popular female musicians under 30, and I'm sure well over half of them are indiputable in the current top 50. (No particular order, though obviously some of the biggest are mentioned first):
#Britney Spears
#Christina Aguilera
#Jessica Simpson
#Ashlee Simpson
#Rihanna
#Amy Winehouse
#Kelly Clarkson
#Lilly Allen
#Beyonce Knowles
#Kelly Rowland
#Michelle Williams
#Kate Nash
#Hillary Duff
#Vanessa Carlton
#Michelle Branch
#Miley Cyrus
#Lindsay Lohan
#Vanessa Hudgens
#Leann Rimes
#Jordan Sparks
#Mandy Moore
#Mary Kate Olsen
#Ashley Olsen
#Jamie Lynn Spears
#Ashley Tisdale
#Pink
#Avril Lavigne
#Carrie Underwood
#Fantasia Barrino
#Kellie Pickler
#Nelly Furtado
#Natasha Bedingfield
#Alicia Keyes
#Norah Jones
#Ashanti
#Mya
#Kelis
#Duffy
#Kelly Osbourn
#Joss Stone
#Tegan Quin
#Sara Quin
#Colbie Caillot
#Cassie
#Ciara
#Katherine McPhee
#Lady Sovereign
#Haylie Duff
#Sara Barilles
#Leona Lewis
So that confirms there are at least 50 popular female pop stars in the genres of rock, pop, and country and in the English speaking world (I'm not going to start looking for young pop stars in China, India, Japan, and other places that I'm sure have many such singers we'll never hear of). All of these, I'm pretty sure, are currently under 30. I don't know of any who have breast cancer, but I don't know that they don't. If we can identify a significant number of them who do, or identify others not on this list who maybe should be who do have breast cancer, we can have some numbers to work with. They will not be exact, and won't in themselves confirm any hypothesis, but they will be a good start, and give us something to work with. After all, the title of this is "mystery"; it doesn't claim to give definite answers and we shouldn't demand any at this stage

: This is a good start, and I haven't had a chance to review these individuals. But the population should not include women who are too young to develop breast cancer, such as teenagers. Also, it should not include women who lack performance schedules that would necessitate the disclosure of breast cancer as the reason for cancellations. Most entertainers, particularly those who rely on a healthy and sexy image, would be reluctant for understandable reasons to disclose the disease unless they virtually have to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::The first is easy enough, we can limit the pool from performers born since May 1978 to born between May 1978 and May 1988. That will remove teenagers (though should any Hollywood teens turn out to have breast cancer they will have to be removed from the analysis as well, which could end up working against your hypothesis). Since the vast majority of those listed above are in their 20's the list won't change dramatically, I think.
::The second part is harder. Analysis of schedules and trying to make judgment calls on who is likely to hide a diagnosis is very subjective, particularly as we have no strong evidence of stars keeping it a secret. In fact, as a diagnosis of cancer is a surefire ticket to the cover of People magazine, they have an incentive to go public. Hollywood types thrive on publicity. Without compelling evidence of a statistically significant number of Hollywood women keeping cancer diagnoses secret, I don't see how it can be worked into even an informal study. If the results show a higher instance of breast cancer in this group, as you seem to think will be the case, then these potential secret cases won't matter, as we will already have established a higher rate without them. If they're lower for some reason, then that could be a sign that indeed some are not disclosing it. But I don't see any way of working theoretical non-disclosure into the study. Especially since if we make our study group too small, the probability of getting skewed results is greater. [[User:Cfred|Cfred]] 22:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I've been able to research two of them from the list, but both were near 20 in age (too young to develop breast cancer), and it was not clear they do any touring that would compel a disclosure. Also, the two listed in the entry are not on the list above. I'd limit (and expand) the list to include signers age 21 or 22 through 29 who are (or were) touring singers. I'd be surprised if that list were 100, and astonished if it were as high as 200. Yet 2 announced having breast cancer (one of whom died from it), despite the rate in the general population in that group being only 1 in 2500.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why the limit is to born after 1978 for the population. Minnie Riperton was born in 1947. The people should include individuals like Michelle Phillips, Carole King, Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Diana Ross, Barbara Martin, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne, Susaye Greene, Martha Reeves, Rosalind Holmes, Annette Helton, Gloria Williams, betty Kelly, Lois Reeves, Sandra Tilley, etc... all the way through Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Hallwell. Why limit ourselves to the list of what is popular now - the list given has many more. There's a Colombian singer on the list too - so what about Anasol, Carolina la O, Fanny Lu, Carolina Herrera, Shakira, Toto la Momposina, Veronica Orozco. There's an Australian soap opera actress - so what the women listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors though I'm not sure why one would limit to just soap operas - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors would be better to go from. There's an Australian pop singer in there too - so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers should be added too. Realize that this is just the list of what Wikipedia considers notable. I am sure that PJR can attest that there are many more than 83 female pop artists in Australia since the 1940s. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, are you not reading my words? I said a 10% increase is sufficient cause for concern if it's significantly different from the population, and 5/50 vs 1/1000 is more than 10% and would be significant. That should be clear enough. I do note that I have not gotten an answer to my simple question: where did 50 come from? Why the reluctance to be transparent? 50 is obviously not correct. You challenged someone above to name 50 touring female singers between 22 and 30. Check my talk page for a list of 114. Unlike your list, which includes South America and individuals diagnosed 30 years ago, I only included artists from English-speaking countries who performed in 2007-08. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Two additional notes - Murray and Andy, did you notice my list of 'Girl Groups' above? 69 women of the right age. And the other point is that of course these are only pop singers - and I'm curious to know how we can approach the over half a million actresses listed on IMDB? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray, you say it is "clear enough" but you seem unwilling to answer the question about the mine hypothetical. It's not productive trying to read someone else's mind. You now seem to be saying that anything more than a 10% would be significant. If that's your view, then the data presented on the content page here is plainly significant: By age 30: 1 in 2,525 is the expected risk, yet there are at least 3 singers out of less than 1000 who have been afflicted. No matter how you manipulate the numbers, that's more than 10% in increased risk.

I thought that would've been clear enough Andy but I guess you don't think so. I said yes, that's enough cause for concern ''if'' that's the case, if you know that you only have 50 in the population. I also explicitly said that in that case it would be significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You ask where I got the 50. It's an estimate, obviously, based on observed touring schedules, media coverage, and what the market would support. Your talk page (why your talk page?) lists 114. I've sampled two and one did not appear to be touring, and hence would not be likely to disclose breast cancer. Your list does include Canada and Australia. South America? OK, add 30%. Prior decades? OK, multiple it by 4. It's still far short of 1000.

You sampled 2, did you? And which were they? Which didn't appear to be touring? You're still not explaining how you estimated 50, other than saying you estimated it. I didn't include anyone who hadn't performed between 2007 and the present. And it's far from a complete list. You claimed that someone couldn't identify even 50 - that was incorrect. The point is, we have no idea what the denominator is. In your list, there is 1 person who fits the critera that I used, and that would be Anastacia. Minnie Riperton died 30 years ago, and your other under-30 isn't a musician. Even if I accept your math in the paragraph above, we get a total of about 600. Then we can include Minnie Riperton, and it becomes 2/600. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: EngelUmpocker, your list of 69 might also be good. But the same analysis above applies. By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend.

::: More generally, I don't have a pre-ordained conclusion, and present these data as a mystery. If this were a mine and the data were the same, you can bet most of us would not send our daughters in there. Why the reluctance to admit the possibility that the same is true about these data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, the "half million" refers to IMDB listed '''actresses''', which is where I thought this article had originally begun. We have recently only been debating female singers - "let's now try to begin estimating how many of the half million actresses listed on IMDB are relevant", is what my point was? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Perhaps someone else mentioned that number. I don't see how it is relevant. It would include people who were in just one movie, and maybe never even quit their day job!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It most definitely would include people who would not be 'relevant', but it's a start. We must start to quantify these numbers ''somehow'', as otherwise it's just an assertion - and I know you don't want your theory based on an assertion. But over a half a million is a good start. Certainly I imagine there's tens of thousand of those who would fit our profile and are, or were professional actresses. Certainly, we can see that there's at the very least hundreds of touring young women in the rock and pop business in the 'Western' world. Next I hope to quantify jazz singers, classical musicians, circus performers and Broadway show-style performers. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 16:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO MURRAY AND ENGEL: Murray, Natasha St-Pier from your list was one of the two I sampled who did not seem to be touring. The other one (whose name escapes me) is touring but canceled a big concert, which could mean anything. Engel, you can start with whatever list you like but the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. We could also start with the New York City phone book, I suppose! (Please don't be offended by that humor.)

An intriguing possibility that I toss out for consideration by Murray and Engel, to which I don't yet know the answer, is whether we could use a ranking of the the most successful female singers and then note the frequency of breast cancer as a function of rank. If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, yes, the list of all actresses has far more irrelevant names than relevant ones. But you're starting with a valid list of half a million - would you imagine even 1% of that list is valid? That's 5,500 individuals. And starting with the NYC phone book would be better than starting with a list displaying nothing but [[selection bias]], as you have here, since that would be essentially random, unlike your list. The key to understanding all statistical analysis is understanding that one's sample MUST be random, as countless others have pointed out above.

:As to your suggestion, a population size of 20 is not an adequate population upon which to test a theory about a medical condition.

:Finally, I want to return to an earlier point made by others. It seems the vast majority of the women you have listed here have indeed born children. How does this fit into your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, Natasha St Pier was touring in 2007: [http://www.concertandco.com/artiste/natasha-st-pier/billet-concert-27548.htm]. As to your comment about rank, it is a distraction given that the primary issues raised here are not resolved. But nevertheless, it would be easy enough to approximate by categorizing artists based on sales and determining whether the risk differs by category. Though a glance at your list on the "Mystery" page suggests (to me at least) you would find nothing, as only 2 singers got breast cancer under 30 that are listed, and the only place I've heard of either is right here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Let me guess, "Wandering": you're another person who thinks "Hollywood" means merely the physical town in Southern California.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I'd appreciate it if you answered my question, rather than make assumptions about my beliefs. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you plan to answer my question? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Not more than I have. There are more interesting issues to discuss and debate, as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I must therefore assume you do not have the answer. Oh well. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Research Resources==

To assist in the research for this article, I'm providing some links that may be helpful towards assessing the number of young female performers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_music_performers here's] a list of all Country & Western musicians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_vocalists Here's a list] of jazz singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actors Here's] a list of American stage actors.

[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics Here's IMDB's overall statistics page], listing total number of actresses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rock_singers List of female rock singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_heavy_metal_singers List of female heavy metal singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soap_opera_actors List of Australian Soap Opera actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_television_actors List of Australian TV actors].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pop_singers List of Australian Pop singers].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_musicians List of Canadian musicians].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_pop_musicians_of_the_2000s List of British Pop Musicians of the 2000's].

[http://circusperformers.org/ Here's the website] for circus performers.

Unfortunately many of these are not broken down by gender, but maybe we can ask the various editors to help. Warning - the lists get very, very long. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Katy Cusack==
Ms. Cusack, according to the articles, was a stage actress only in the Austin area, and worked mainly at a clothing shop she owned. I don't think she should be counted as part of Hollywood. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:I plan on removing her from the list soon. I could be wrong, but I don't think she falls under the definition of a member of Hollywood. It would be nice if someone else could respond one way or the other. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Norwegian actress and porn star==

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that. [[user:DamianJohn]]

== Link to breast enhancment ? ==

a delicate subject to be sure but is there ant statistical link to show that actresses with breast cancer ALSO had breast enhancements which may have increased the risks ? just a thought [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: Seems unlikely and there are far larger studies of that issue with negative results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Statistical analysis ==

This came up on the recent changes and I was somewhat shocked by the fundamental mistakes underlying this apparent 'mystery'.

The article ONLY lists a very few cases of Hollywood (and even some who have nothing to do with Hollywood) actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively young age. They have been listed because they are below the average age for diagnosis, but as has been pointed out this figure is the mean, by definition it will have values above and below. There will also be many examples of Hollywood actresses diagnosed with the condition after the average age, and I expect that if an actual survey were done the average age of diagnosis when limited to hollywood actresses would be very close to the national average. However, this raises another fundamental flaw. The group in question is far too small in mathematical terms for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The definition of the group of people in question is also highly arbitrary making any sort of mathematical assessment of the group difficult. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

: Robert, please learn first here, then comment. Your statistical analysis above is completely wrong. Clusters within a group this size certainly are meaningful.

: By chance, you didn't work for tobacco companies a few decades ago, did you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::I can safely say I have never nor would I ever work for a tobacco company. My argument is that the statistics are not meaningful for the group size in question since for one thing the group size has not been accurately delimited. And for another the group has been selected by specifically identifying individual actresses that have been diagnosed at a young age. I'm sure there are hollywood actresses who have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively old age and certainly ages much closer to or above the average stated in the article, however this has not been accounted for and in statistical terms there is a pre-existing bias towards the younger victims before any analysis is actually undertaken. You yourself also acknowledge the lack of complete numbers of those diagnosed within hollywood. The statistics regarding actual risk also differ temporally and spatially. Obviously hollywood actresses come from across the world and so the statistics that are more relevant to them would be those from their places of origin. Even within the USA there is variation in the chance of suffering from breast cancer. The different times at which the featured actresses were diagnosed also raises issues since the risk statistics have changed over time whereas the articles simply groups them all together. (also as you shall see i have edited the title of this section from both my original and your edit, to better reflect the nature of this discussion. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:::RobertWDP, you may or may not be aware of Mr Schlafly's considerable experience in the medico-legal world and that he has a commanding grip of statistical analysis displayed on numerous occasions in the pages of this encyclopaedia. It would be sensible, and courteous, to recognise and respect his expertise. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::::I hope I have been courteous and that I will continue to be. I am willing to recognise the expertise of others if they will do me the same favour. I have studied statistics as a stand-alone subject in considerable depth. I do not think the need for any significant medical knowledge is all that great here, I am willing to accept the statistics provided regarding national rates and the like and medical questions as to what may actually cause the apparent mystery are never really raised to a significant extent and are not the focus of my critique. The specific issues of fundamental statistics I have referred to in both of my previous messages on this subject have yet to be addressed in any response thus far, and I think this might well prove to be a more constructive line of discussion as opposed to speculating about personal issues. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::: RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that ''is'' statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in holyywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. THere is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-02-28T18:02:15Z

RobertWDP: /* Comments Section */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]



Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2009-02-28T17:27:55Z

RobertWDP: please do not edit out my comments, they are not in anyway offensive and opinions are allowed here

Science

2009-02-28T16:25:32Z

RobertWDP:

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."<ref>Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]].
In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]]. However, in recent years, American scientists have been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time. The generally accepted scientific procedure is:

* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A hypothesis is made to explain the observations
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
** If multiple experiments support the hypothesis it is considered a theory
** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is modified or discarded and a new hypothesis is developed

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.<ref>Examples would include the claims that God created the world and that all living things evolved from a common ancestor.</ref>

On the other hand, in the absence of repeatable experiments being able to be done (past events such the very beginning of the universe), scientists believe in following the inference to the best explanation.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Statistics

2009-02-28T16:17:30Z

RobertWDP:

{{statistics}}

''This article is about mathematical statistics. For statistics regarding [[Conservapedia]], see [[Special:Statistics]].''

'''Statistics''' "the practice or science of collecting and analysing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample."<ref>Soanes, C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data. It is used in all research oriented disciplines from physics, chemistry and biology to economics, anthropology and psychology as well as many thousands of other fields. It is also used in businesses and governments.

Statistics analyzes data in two primary ways, the first is called [[descriptive statistics]] which describes and summarizes the data. Often this will include things like: [[mean | the mean]], [[standard error]], or [[standard deviation]] each of these is an example of a [[statistic]]. Also statistics can attempt to infer relationships between the data collected and various hypothesis or populations, this is called [[inferential statistics]]. Both descriptive and inferential statistics comprise applied statistics. There is also a discipline called mathematical statistics, which is concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject.

Statistics takes its name from the fact that it was traditionally taught to monarchs to enable them to manage affairs of state.

==Frequentist Approaches==

[[Frequency probability | Frequentist]] approaches are often referred to as classical approaches because it is the oldest and most used method of statistical analysis. The heart of this approach is to try and understand data as a relative frequency or ratio of a particular occurrence out of a total possible number of occurrences. For example, a frequentist would describe the number of times a coin turns up heads as a ratio of total number of heads out of total number of flips.

===Descriptive statistics===

Frequentist approahces to descriptive statistics mostly involve averaging. For example, the mean of a sample is calculated as the total value of all observations divided by total number of trials, and the standard error is calculated by taking the total error size for all samples and dividing by total number of trials.

These methods stem from the view of data as ratios probabilities.

===Inferential statistics===

Frequentist approaches to inferential statistics primarily involve trying to compare descriptive statistics of two data sets to determine if they are [[statistically significant | significantly]] different. One of the most common approaches is to test a given data set against a [[null hypothesis]] or the data set that would be created if the values were the result of random chance alone. For example, if a given head came up 9 times as heads and 1 time as tails you would compare the number of heads, 9, to the number of heads that would be expected if chance alone was operating, or 5.

Testing against the null hypothesis is sometimes referred to as an [[omnibus]] test since it is testing the idea that a given data set is the result of anything other than chance. Often it is much more desirable to test specific data sets against each other.

===Common frequentist methods===

[[Linear model]]

[[Analysis of variance]]

[[Chi-Square test]]

[[Students t-test]]

[[Z test]]

[[Linear regression]]

[[Multiple Regression]]

[[Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient]]

==Bayesian Approaches==

[[Bayesian inference | Bayesian statistics]] is a method of applying [[Bayes theorem]] to data analysis. One of the biggest difference between Bayesian approaches and frequentist approaches is that Bayesians attempt to determine the probability that a given hypothesis is true given the data, while frequentist attempt to define the probability of getting the data given that a particular hypothesis is true.

Bayesian approaches are becoming more and more popular in science because what most people are interested in is the probability of the proposed hypothesis, not the probability of the data. It also does not need to make prior assumptions about the data such as [[Normal distribution | normality]] and [[homogeneity of variance]]. However, Bayesian methods have come under fire from many frequentist proponents. This has led to very heated debate in statistical circles, though this has largely died now, about the respective validity of both methods. The primary complaint leveled at Bayesian statistics is that it must use a [[prior probability]] of a hypothesis in its analysis. This prior is intended to build contextual information into the analysis, but it may be seen by its critics as subjective or arbitrary. Commonly used prior distributions include the [[uniform distribution]] and [[beta distribution]].

===Descriptive statistics===

Bayesian methods all use Bayes' equation, this applies for both descriptive and inferential statistics. To find such things as the mean and standard deviation first a prior probability for all means and standard deviations must be assigned. In practice this usually means assigning uniform probabilities to values equally spaced between what we think is the minimum and maximum values for the statistic we are interested in (the number of values depends on the grid density, which is proportional to accuracy and inversely proportional to computation time). Then a likelihood of each value is then calculated based on the data and then Bayes equation is used to assign a [[posterior probability]] for each value. These posterior probabilities can be plotted as a [[probability density function]] (PDF) to see the various probabilites for the value given the data, or often simply the value with the highest posterior probability is simply chosen.

===Inferential statistics===

Inferential statistics in Bayesian methods looks much the same as descriptive statistics since both use the Bayes equation and the same basic approach. To compare to means you would calculate the PDF for each data set then subtract them from each other to figure out the probability that they differ.

In order to compare hypothesis [[Bayesian model selection]] is often used. This is when each hypothesis you want to test is assigned a prior probability, and then the likelihood of the data given each hypothesis being test is calculated. You can then us Bayes equation to determine the relative probabilities that each hypothesis is correct. This method is almost always testing relative probabilites since to calculate an absolute probability would require knowing every possible hypothesis. Usually this is not possible, but sometimes the subset is finite enough it can be tested.

Because of the large number of calculations needed for model selection Bayesian approaches have only became practical and popular with the advent of computers. But even with the most modern computers available many Bayesian models remain computational intractable. Recent developments in applying [[Markov chain]] [[Monte Carlo method | Monte Carlo methods]] to these problems have led to promising results.

==Non-parametric and Bootstrapping methods==

One of the greatest problems in frequentist approaches to statistics is that it often relies on making prior assumptions about how the data looks and was collected. Most commonly the data must be a normal distribution and have homogeneity of variance. Different statistical methods are more or less robust to violations of these assumptions, and some techniques have attempted to avoid them all together. The end result though is usually a significant loss of power and increased likelihood of error.

[[Non-parametric statistics]] are any one of many methods that attempt to define descriptive characteristics or make inferential claims with out the need of tightly confined parameters. The main goals is to try and eliminate the need for assumptions without sacrificing power and accuracy.

[[Bootstrapping statistics]] is a particularly popular non-parametric approach. Bootstrapping is computationally costly and has only recently become feasible for most data sets. It involves [sampling with replacement]] from the given data set perhaps as many as 100,000 times in order to determine mean, error, best fits and comparisons of data sets.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Probability and Statistics]]

Biology

2009-02-28T16:17:03Z

RobertWDP:

{{RefAppeal}}

'''Biology''' is 'the study of living organisms, which includes their structure (gross and microscopical), functioning, origin and evolution, classification, interrelationships, and distribution.' <ref>Martin, E. and Hine, R. (2008) 'A Dictionary of Biology' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref>

It encompasses several fields of study, including [[genetics]], [[biochemistry]], [[cell biology]], [[structural biology]], [[mammalian physiology]], [[biophysics]], [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, studies such as [[ecology]] and [[evolution]] also fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The [[cell]]ular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division, generally through [[mitosis]] but with meiosis playing a significant role.

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

The discoveries of the nineteenth century spurred the development of modern biology. Mendel's breeding experiments initiated [[genetics]]; the microscope initiated [[microbiology]]; and the synthesis of urea initiated [[biochemistry]]. In the early twentienth century the field of [[population genetics]] spurred the development of [[statistics]]. Advances in [[analytical chemistry]] permitted scientists to determine the structure of important biological molecules, such as DNA. These discoveries lead to the rapid development of [[molecular genetics]]. Coming full circle, these developments, combined with population genetic theory, is permitting scientists to examine the process of crop and animal domestication.

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Statistics

2009-02-28T16:16:01Z

RobertWDP:

Biology

2009-02-28T16:12:24Z

RobertWDP:

Ecology

2009-02-28T16:10:16Z

RobertWDP:

'''Ecology''' is 'the study of the interrelationships between organisms and their natural environment, both living and non-living'<ref>Martin, E. and Hine, R. (2008) 'A Dictionary of Biology' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref>

A popular aspect of ecology is the relationship of the relative proportions of predator and prey. When more predators are introduced to an environment, they eat more prey animals. This tends to increase the population of predators, since they get more food and can thus live longer to reproduce more. But it also reduces the food supply, which contrariwise causes the predators to live shorter lives and to reproduce less. In some ecosystems, the populations of predator and prey cycle up and down wildly, but usually they reach an equilibrium.<ref>Rockwood, Larry L. ''Introduction to Population Ecology''. Wiley Blackwell, 2006. ISBN 9781405132633. Chapter 10.</ref>

{{quotebox|The first significant contribution to the theory of population ecology was that of [[Thomas Malthus]], an English clergyman, who in 1798 published his Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus introduced the concept that at some point in time an expanding population must exceed supply of prerequisite [[natural resources]], i.e., population increases exponentially resulting in increasing competition for means of subsistence, food, shelter, etc. This concept has been termed the "Struggle for Existence". [http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/ecology.htm]}}

Ecology is an established [[science]], but the term is often confused with or used interchangably with [[environmentalism]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Biology

2009-02-28T16:06:10Z

RobertWDP:

{{RefAppeal}}

'''Biology''' is the [[science|scientific]] study of living organisms and their interaction with the physical environment.

It encompasses several fields of study, including [[genetics]], [[biochemistry]], [[cell biology]], [[structural biology]], [[mammalian physiology]], [[biophysics]], [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, studies such as [[ecology]] and [[evolution]] also fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The [[cell]]ular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division, generally through [[mitosis]] but with meiosis playing a significant role.

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

The discoveries of the nineteenth century spurred the development of modern biology. Mendel's breeding experiments initiated [[genetics]]; the microscope initiated [[microbiology]]; and the synthesis of urea initiated [[biochemistry]]. In the early twentienth century the field of [[population genetics]] spurred the development of [[statistics]]. Advances in [[analytical chemistry]] permitted scientists to determine the structure of important biological molecules, such as DNA. These discoveries lead to the rapid development of [[molecular genetics]]. Coming full circle, these developments, combined with population genetic theory, is permitting scientists to examine the process of crop and animal domestication.

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

[[Category:Biology]]

Mean

2009-02-28T16:02:24Z

RobertWDP:

The '''mean''' is a term in [[statistics]]. The mean is a method of determining the central tendency, the [[average]], of a set of data, although being the most common method for doing this it is generally simply referred to as 'the average'. The mean is the sum of a set of numbers divided by how many numbers are in the set.

To find the mean, the numbers are added and divided by the [[quantity]] of numbers in the group. For example: to find the mean of 3, 4, 6, and 7, we add them together: <math>3 + 4 + 6 + 7 = 20</math>. Then we divide them by the quantity of numbers in the group, which is 4. <math>20/4 = 5</math>.

Most [[spreadsheet]] programs and [[computer language]]s consider ''average'' to be the mean, but there are three common types of [[average]]. Often the [[median]] is far from the [[mean]], when values are skewed in one direction.

==See Also==

*[[Median]]
*[[Mode]]

[[category:Statistics]]