Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-21T13:26:02Z

Rubashov: /* Hans Bethe and SDI */

{| 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]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== 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)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 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. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

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)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 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)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-21T13:25:16Z

Rubashov: /* Hans Bethe and SDI */

{| 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]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== 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)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 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. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

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)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 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)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because he critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-21T03:16:05Z

Rubashov: /* Hans Bethe and SDI */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-20T18:23:01Z

Rubashov:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-01-20T16:30:23Z

Rubashov: /* Hans Bethe and SDI */ new section

Talk:World History Lecture Thirteen

2010-01-20T16:00:14Z

Rubashov: /* Viet Minh */

{{protect|Geo.plrd}}

== Somalia ==

Somalia was formed from British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland but NOT French Somaliland. French Somaliland became the separate independent state of [[Djibouti]].

Also, you have omitted the significant colonial acquisitions made by Germany between the 1880s and the 1914-18 War: Kamerun, German South West Africa, German East Africa (Tanganyika). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Mrs Gandhi ==
did not succeed her father, Nehru, on his death but two years later. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== UK/Palestine==
The UK returned its mandate over Palestine to the UN. It did not 'ask the UN to partition Palestine'. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Golda Meir ==
''Golda Meir was the third women in history to run a nation''

Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Anne, Christina of Sweden, Catherine the Great, the Dowager Empress Cixi... [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Ethnic Cleansing ==
Your comments are a disgrace. 'Ethnic cleansing' and racial murder by all parties in Bosnia is well-documented, but was principally carried out by Serbs of Moslems. To try and deny this by blaming it on an 'anti-Christian' press is obscene. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Errors ==
''"Latin America" is Spanish America and Brazil, where Portuguese is spoken. Put another way, Latin America is all of America south of the United States.''

No: what about Surinam, Guyana and French Guiana? they do not speak Spanish or Portugese.

Also, many other errors in this essay (and others) have been pointed out to you. Why do you persist in perpetuating inaccuracies? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]]

== More Errors ==
''Five European powers – Great Britain, Belgium, France, Portugal, and the Netherlands – had divided Africa into colonies during the Imperialism Era.''

What about Germany? Spain? Italy? And the only Dutch colony - the Cape Colony - was taken over by Britain at the time of the Naoploeonic Wars. [[User:DukeAra|DukeAra]] 07:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''Demonstrations, such as the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre, occasionally broke out but were violently put down. An ANC leader named Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for his role in that demonstration. Riots over school segregation occurred in Soweto in 1976, and in 1977 the government beat an outspoken critic, Steve Biko, to death''

Words fail me. You should get a Pullitzer, Andy, for your prose alone. [[User:DukeAra|DukeAra]] 07:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Viet Minh ==
"When he returned in 1941, he founded “Vietminh”, with the name reflecting that he intended to rule as a dictator"#

Please expand on this statement. [[User:DukeAra|DukeAra]] 07:44, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:Yes, according to the dictionary, Viet Minh is an abbreviation of a phrase that means "Vietnam Independence League."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vietminh</ref> There is nothing about that phrase that necessarily implies that anyone intended to rule as a dictator. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:00, 20 January 2010 (EST)

== East Germany ==
''Hungary helped end communism in East Germany, which was the most brutal of the communist regimes.''
If one is making comparisons between communist regimes, I would argue that that in Romania was a good deal more repressive and brutal than that of the GDR. [[User:DukeAra|DukeAra]] 07:53, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Editing ==

I tried to add a wikilink to Igbo but the page has been locked. I also feel that the sections should be wiki-headings so that it is easier to navigate a long document. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2010-01-20T15:43:01Z

Rubashov: /* Communism and Christianity */ new section

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:He made the site...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.''

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

: Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!{{unsigned|JBryant}}

::Well????

::: Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????
listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? [[User:JBryant|JBryant]] 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

: No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on [[gossip]] about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity ==

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

: The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

I clarified one postulate, i.e., ''The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.'' That seems to be an improvement over ''the speed of light never changes''...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the ''German Physics''.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:It is '''inappropriate''' to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.
:If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?
:I do not think it is a coincidence. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My ''specific factual improvement'' of the article is a change of your wording (''the speed of light never changes'') of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity.
Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:
*'''Wolfgang Pauli''' ''Theory of Relativity'', 1958, p. 5: ''The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source''

*'''Robert Resnick''', '''David Halliday''' ''Fundamentals of Physics'', 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: ''The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light''

and from a source you seem to trust:

*'''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Merriam-Webster]''' ''the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer''
None of these - and many others - implies that the ''speed of light never changes''. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that ''the speed of light never changes'', but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is ''independent of the motion of the light source''.

The phrase ''the speed of light never changes'' is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: ''If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant.'' I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::I stated above that I won't touch the ''historical'' aspects of the lecture, but only the ''scientific'' ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain ''Weltanschauung'', that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.
::I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the [[Theory of Relativity]].
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::''addendum'' It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture '''again''', and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (''the speed of light can never be increased''). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of ''Newton's axioms'', and one shouldn't with ''Einstein's postulates'', neither.
But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:
::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
::::# the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
::::# the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
::::# the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

::::Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?
::::In his article ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper'' - ''About the electrodynamics of moving bodies'' (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote
:::::'' 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.''

:::::''2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. ''

::::This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

:::::''1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described''

:::::''2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body''

::::So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : '''the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source'''

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Einstein speaks of a ''certain velocity V'' - ''eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V''. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (''V'') - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.
:::::: The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the ''Gedankenexperimente'' ...
:::::: To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem?
For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement:

::<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

:I don't know why you keep avoiding the obvious: the theory of relativity ''does'' plainly assume a maximum fixed velocity for light, known as ''c''. If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.

:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)

::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....

::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.

::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::My restated postulate that the "speed of light can never be increased" does preclude the scenario you describe, whereby a static observer increases the observed speed of light with the assistance of a moving observer. This is expressly precluded by my restatement of the postulate.

:::But your postulate about "independent of the motion of the light source" does not preclude increasing the speed of light beyond the ordinarily observed "c". Indeed, some relativists now insist that "c" need not be the ordinarily observed speed of light, but can be any assumed upper bound on the speed of light, and might be much greater than "c" as traditionally defined. My postulate is what underlies the above fundamental formula of relativity; your postulate requires redefining "c" in the above formula.

:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::If your formulation of Einstein's postulates is superior Pauli's formulation (as quoted by me), why do physicists around the world use Pauli's version in text books, articles, etc. ? Why did Einstein, Sommerfeld, Born, etc. endorsed Pauli's article, where he stated the postulates the way I do? Is yours a new insight into the world of special relativity which all the physicists of today seem to have missed?

::::I'm sorry that you found the biblical quote unclear.

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Rather than answer my two simple questions, or be substantive, you resort to a question rant. Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a ''conservative'' cannot possibly improve on it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Two answer your two questions:
::::::*Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? - '''Yes'''
::::::*Do you earnestly seek the truth? - '''Yes'''
::::::Now, here are mine:
::::::*Do you try to ''apply'' the Bible to physics?
::::::*Do you think you are the one to improve Pauli's formulation of Einstein's postulates substantially? The same formulations which are around for a century and used by physicists around the world? Endorsed by the leading scientist of his time? Please, do yourself a favor, and ask some actual physicists what they think about your version...
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:03, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== 20th century science ==

There are a number of comments I'd like to make about the science / technology section of this lecture. That is the only part I'm going to address; the rise of "modern physics" (quantum mechanics and relativity) happens to be something I take great interest in. Some of my comments are rather trivial, like the way Freud died, but some are, in my opinion, quite serious, to the point of being untrue, or at least seriously misleading to the point of appearing deceptive.

:But first, you have challenged other contributors making comments on the talk page for lecture 9 to take your midterm exam. Accordingly, I have created a "modern physics" midterm [[User:Robert/Physics Exam|here]]. In the spirit of good fun, I challenge you to take it. And, of course, feel free to adapt any of these questions into your exams.

Here are my comments:

*"The most notable accomplishment in science was the discovery of quantum mechanics ..." You should qualify it as "accomplishments in ''20th century'' science". I realize that this lecture is about the early 20th century, so the context should be clear, but the sentence looks funny without that qualification. Also, you should mention that there were ''two'' theoretical achievements in the early years of the 20th century: quantum mechanics and relativity. Those two together are considered to be the rise of "modern physics", perhaps the most important physics watershed in history. You may consider them very different, and you may assign much greater importance to one than the other, but the fact is that they are taken together whenever one writes the history of "modern physics".
*"ultimately produced about a dozen Nobel Prizes" About a dozen? Much more than that, I'd say. I don't have the list in front of me (it could be looked up easily), but I'd guess that most physics Nobels have been related to quantum mechanics and subatomic behavior.
*"basis for the entire computer industry today" I'll have more to say about that below.
*"Enrico Fermi, a devout Christian" I don't know for sure, but that may be a stretch. From what I've read, he was raised in a not-very-observant Catholic family, and was not very observant himself. He may have been an agnostic. But I'm not an expert on this. You could very well have better information.
*"Quantum mechanics formed the basis later for the discovery of very small transistors, which today form the integrated circuits in every computer and electronic device." More below. It is, in any case, somewhat redundant with an earlier statement.
*"relativity was proposed based on mathematical theory rather than observation" Well, quantum mechanics was also based on mathematical theory (statistical mechanics) rather than observation. No one observed quantum effects in a recognizable way until well after Planck's "quantized oscillator" theory. Of course, Planck's observations about statistical mechanics were ultimately based on observation (no area of physics can be formulated completely in a vacuum), but the same can be said of relativity -- it was based on observed invariance of Maxwell's equations, etc. The two theories actually had quite similar origins, as mathematical theories designed to explain effects that were quite esoteric in comparison with the usual way scientific theories are made (dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, for example.)
*"the expression arose that 'space is curved.' But experiments later proved that space is flat overall." Totally misleading and/or wrong. The curvature of spacetime as the source of gravity is firmly established, and has been for decades. The way this is popularized is unfortunate, but the statement you made seems to be exploiting the imprecision of the curvature in the popular imagination. It then seems to imply that space isn't curved after all. This is just wrong, if not outright deceptive. The two effects are completely different. The scientists using supernova data to determine the overall curvature of the universe know full well that ''local'' curvature is real, and is the source of gravity.
*"Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity" More below.
*"Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atom bomb, contrary to popular opinion." Largely true, and you are to be congratulated for debunking some nonsense. (I even have a book about the Manhattan Project claiming that Einstein was at Los Alamos!) But "nothing to do with" is too strong a statement. I'm not sure just how the sentence should be phrased.
*"validity of that particular award [Hulse/Taylor, I presume?] is questionable" Is this really a controversy you want to get into? Are you questioning the research or results of Hulse and Taylor? Can you cite that? Is it relevant to the history of 20th century physics?
*"Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons" Not true. Relativity never predicted gravitons. They arose from later attempts (still ongoing) to unify relativity with quantum mechanics. As you know, Einstein never participated in those attempts, and wasn't very accepting of quantum mechanics.
*"Many observed phenomena, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton's theory." '''Absolutely untrue'''. The two theories give different values for the bending of light; and the determination of which value was correct (not whether it bends at all) is what Eddington was seeking. We all know that Eddington handled the situation in a way that wouldn't pass muster today, and pointing this out was the right thing. But subsequent observations, that are accurate and unimpeachable, confirm the relativity value or 1.75 arcseconds. There is a lot of confusion in the lay literature about whether classical mechanics predicted any bending at all, and, consequently, just what Eddington was looking for. You have a chance to clear that up. But the existing article seems to muddy the waters, rather than clearing them.
:Furthermore, Newton's theory '''does not predict (anomalous) perihelion precession'''. Absolutely not at all. Now one might think that one could fudge the exponent (2) in the inverse square law, but
:*That wouldn't be Newton's theory. Newton set the exponent to 2.
:*It doesn't work in any case. The anomalous precession fraction is 3 v2/c2. Connected with the velocity as a fraction of the speed of light. It is, without question, a relativistic effect.
:General relativity is the only credible theory explaining this, and has been right from the start.
*"Eddington supposedly retorted, 'Who's the third?'" This is a very widely misunderstood anecdote. You say nothing about what he meant. Please put it into the context, so that people can understand what it was about, and not continue with their lack of understanding.
*"many seized upon the theory of relativity to apply it in a vague way to morality and social issues" Could you please say "wrongly seized upon"? I know you believe that seizing upon this is wrong; you can help put this foolishness to rest.
*"There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics" Really? Does this have to do with the "vague morality and social issues" business? You seem to be implying that by putting it in the very next sentence. Do you really believe that congressional appropriations on LIGO, for example, are based on some notion that it will promote moral relativism? Can you cite evidence?
*Big bang vs. steady state -- good.
*Freud -- minor nit: Is there a point to saying that his death was assisted by a physician? If your intent is to show that doctor-assisted suicide did not originate with Dr. Kevorkian, and that it was going on at least as far back as 1939, please say so, with appropriate statistical data. As it is, one anecdote doesn't really say much. BTW, a far more telling anecdote relating to 20th century science would be the death of Max Planck's son.

=== When is technology "based on" something theoretical? ===

Some statements in the lecture, cited above, attempt to draw a clear distinction between quantum mechanics, with an apparently huge number of practical applications (including the entire computer and semiconductor industry) and relativity, with none at all. It is extremely misleading to say that quantum mechanics can be credited with producing transistor technology. So much so that a reader might come away from this lecture having been deceived into thinking that quantum mechanics is "more important" than relativity. They are both extremely important. But they are both '''theoretical''' advances. They give us insights into how the universe works. In retrospect, those insights are, of course, crucial to everything we do. Including transistors.

Consider this:

*Quantum mechanics tells us how electron orbitals work, and hence how all chemical reactions work. Without chemical reactions, we would have nothing.
*Relativity tells us how gravity works. Without gravity, we would have nothing. Relativity also tells us how electromagnetism works. This is the basis for the "electrical revolution" of the 19th and 20th centuries.

But people have known about chemical reactions (for example, fire) since long before 1900, and people have known about gravity since long before 1900. Fire, and all the inventions dependent on it, is now known to be explained by quantum mechanics. Space travel, to name one thing out of millions, depends on combustion. Do we credit quantum mechanics for that?

Similarly, without gravity, we would not be in orbit around the Sun. We would have none of the benefits of being close to a star. In fact, neither the Sun nor the Earth could have formed. Do we credit relativity for that?

Furthermore, the electric and magnetic forces are unified by relativity. Magnetism could be thought of as just a relativistic consequence of the electric force. Therefore, all electric motors and generators, for example, use relativity as the underpinnings of their operation. Do we credit relativity for that? Of course, Maxwell knew nothing about relativity when he formulated his equations. He did not know that they took the form that they did because of relativity. But the cavemen didn't know about the quantum-mechanical underpinnings of fire.

We can credit quantum mechanics, and relativity, '''after the fact''' for all these wonderful things. But most of them were developed without direct use of these theories. There are a few inventions (SQUIDS, for example) that directly, intentionally, and knowingly depend on quantum mechanics. But most use it indirectly. The semiconductor properties of Germanium and Silicon were known long before the details of the "band theory" solid-state quantum mechanics were worked out.

Putting it another way, one can fabricate a transistor without knowing the details of quantum mechanics, just as one can upload gravitational time dilation information to GPS satellites, or turn on a fan, without knowing the details of relativity.

[[User:Robert|Robert]] 15:21, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== Communism and Christianity ==

I've noticed that the section on "Communism" enters almost immediately into a discussion of Christianity and the parables of Jesus. Might it make more sense (and perhaps be more intellectually honest) to consider/critique Communist ideology on its own terms a little more before moving on to interpretations from the Christian perspective. Communism (and the work of Karl Marx more broadly) is a complex and difficult social theory that, like it or not, is important even today to how we understand and discuss our world. It would seem important that students become familiar with the theory itself to allow for more informed critique. As the section on Socialism and Communism in lecture ten strikes me as a bit light, I think we should add a bit more heft, either in Lecture Ten or here. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 10:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Two

2010-01-20T15:14:26Z

Rubashov:

Italy was a member of the ''Triple Alliance''. Yet, didn't join the war on side of Germany and Austria-Hungary, but as late as 1915 as an allied force.
The reason: the ''Triple Alliance'' was created for defensive purposes, and Italy deemed the war against Serbia as aggressive.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:20, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

: Your poor grammar obscures your point. Could you restate more clearly?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:*Italy became of member of the ''Triple Alliance'' in 1882
:*Italy remained neutral in 1914, claiming that the ''Triple Alliance'' was intended for defensive purposes only
:*Italy joined the war on side of the allied forces in 1915
:*So, Italy had ties to the central powers, but instead of choosing sides in 1914, it did so in 1915.
:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:33, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:: You give too much credit to the motivation underlying Mussolini's positions. He switched sides because the Allied forces promised him more. Then he ended up with less than he was promised, after he failed to achieve much in battle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Mussolini? '''Mussolini???''' My, you ''are'' in the wrong war. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:53, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::No, Mussolini was the leader of the socialists in Italy in World War I, and his change in position mirrored his nation's.[http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:11, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Mussolini had changed his position from supporting absolute neutrality (his party's position) to an intervention on behalf of the allied forces.
::::He was mainly a journalist at this time, one of the most prominent socialists, but not ''the leader of the socialists in Italy''
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:17, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, may I offer some advice as an experienced teacher? Clement rightly pointed out that you were incorrect to state that Italy changed sides then to suggest that Mussolini influenced the decision to declare war on Austria-Hungary in 1915. I think a better response from you to Clement in both cases would have been, "Whoops! Sorry, I made a mistake". This would have added to your credibility as an educator, whereas not recognising that you (like everyone else) sometimes make mistakes detracts from it. There's no disgrace in misunderstanding Italy's foreign policy before WW1, which was complex and duplicitous. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 13:22, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: JosephMac and Clement, I encourage you to read up more about Mussolini and World War I. Here's a sample to bring you up to speed: "Because of his beliefs, Mussolini was supportive of World War I and tried to push Italians to support and join the fight. ... he founded a newspaper for war propaganda to urge Italians to want to get involved in the war."[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1450352/hitler_and_mussolini_during_world_war.html] Socialists generally opposed World War I as a though it were a "capitalistic war," and Mussolini's change in position as a leading socialist towards favoring Italy's entry on the side of the capitalistic Britain and France was pivotal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but Musso became a significant figure in Italian politics ''after'' WW1, not before or during it. It's incorrect to state that Musso's propaganda in favour of war had any significant effect on the Italian government's decision to attack Austria. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 18:56, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::So you think Mussolini's change in position as the leading socialist and prominent newspaper publisher was ''purely coincidental'' to Italy's subsequent identical change in position as a nation??? No, it wasn't merely coincidental. Newspapers and activists drive political decisions, my friend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:16, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Regardless of Mussolini's desires or his influence on policy, Italy was NOT a member of the Central Powers at ANY time during World War I, which means the student's answer to the question is incorrect. The Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. Italy fought on the side of the Allied Powers, entering the conflict in 1915. The fact remains that Italy did not declare war on the Allies nor did it send troops to fight on the side of the Central Powers.

World History Lecture Eleven

2010-01-20T14:56:34Z

Rubashov:

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

The Modern era is from 1900 to today. We learn it beginning with this lecture.

The relationship among European nations was strained and tense around 1900, also known as the turn of the (20th) century. The nations had much to disagree about. Imperialism caused conflicts to arise. Economic competition intensified, and the quest for raw materials like gold, oil and agriculture heightened the tension.

Nationalism was increasing at this time, whereby the countries of Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France and Italy began to feel pride in themselves and dislike for each other. The balance of power that was set up after Napoleon was no longer effective. It seemed inevitable that a future Napoleon-like dictator would try to rule the world again.

Nations built up massive military might, and bragged about them. Germany sought to have the largest navy to compete with Britain’s claim that it had the best navy. Rulers found it popular to have a huge "standing army" (army in peacetime) that could be mobilized at any time.

In sum, at the turn of the century there were increased rivalries among European nations for three reasons: nationalism, militarism and imperialism. Keep those three issues in mind throughout this lecture.

== Alliances ==

You may recall that European nations entered into many alliances beginning as early as the fall of Napoleon (such as the “Concert of Europe,” which was established at the Congress of Vienna).

New alliances were formed in the late 1800s, some of them kept secret at the time. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck entered into the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879 as a way of protecting those countries against possible aggression by France. Italy joined this alliance against France in 1882, making it the '''Triple Alliance'''.

Bismarck was a very skilled statesman and diplomat, and was one of the most influential in European history. He is credited with unifying Germany as a nation in the 1860s (ironically, while the United States was torn by the Civil War). Bismarck even arranged for wars against other nations (first against Denmark, then against Austria and finally against France) in order to help unify the German people against outside enemies. Ultimately unified as a nation in 1871, Germany made Bismarck its first Chancellor, whereupon he consolidated Germany’s power in Europe by entering into the above alliances with other countries. After nearly two decades of rule, Bismarck was eventually forced to resign in 1890 because of a policy dispute with Wilhelm II, who as the “Kaiser” or Caesar of Germany wanted more power for himself.

Kaiser Wilhelm II immediately ended Germany’s alliance with Russia, which caused Russia to form an alliance with France in 1891. In 1907 Great Britain, feeling threatened by Germany’s growing navy, joined France and Russia in their alliance, or entente, and this became the '''Triple Entente'''. Under the terms of this alliance, Britain was not expressly required to defend France and Russia, but Britain did promise not to fight against them.

Thus by 1908 one powerful group of three nations (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary), known as the Triple Alliance, stood against another powerful group of three nations (Britain, France and Russia), known as the Triple Entente. It was like one football team standing on a field opposite another football team, with both teams fully suited up. It doesn’t take much for someone to shout, “let’s play,” and the battle will begin. The “battle” became the first world war in history.

And what a devastating war it was. Never before in the history of the world was a war fought in such a deadly manner. With Christians on both sides, one might wonder how this could have happened. But this was long past the feudal times when fighting stopped on every Christian holiday. By 1914, leaders in both Germany on one side and Britain on the other had embraced deadly beliefs like the evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest, and many educated people felt that war was an essential, inevitable part of the improvement of the human race. Let the stronger race win, according to this theory.

== Igniting World War I ==

It was only a matter of time before something would ignite a conflict and cause one alliance to fight against the other. The Balkans in Eastern Europe was where the war began. The Ottoman empire had declined, leaving a power vacuum that European nations tried to fill. The Slavs in Serbia, with Russian support, wanted to unite all the Slavs in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary, which has a very small Slavic population, opposed this. Instead, Austria-Hungary wanted to control the Balkans rather than Russia.

In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia (and Herzogovina), a region adjacent to its southeast (and east of Italy across the Adriatic Sea). But Bosnia was mostly Slavic while Austria was not, and this greatly angered the Slavic Serbia, which wanted to take Bosnia back. Why did Austria act at this particular time? Because there was a rebellion by the Committee of Union and Progress (the so-called “Young Turks”) that overthrew the Ottoman government, and the Austrian foreign minister Baron Aloys von Aerenthal saw a rare opportunity to act. He knew that Russia, which was Austria’s main adversary, was weak at this time due to its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and by an internal revolution in 1905.
In January 1909, the chief of staff of the Austrian army approached his German counterpart and asked what Germany would do if Austria next invaded Serbia and caused Russia to intervene on behalf of Serbia. Despite the original defensive nature of the Austria-German alliance, the Germany army officer said Germany would back Austria and Germany would also invade France because it was Russia’s ally. This is how it played out a few years later in the summer of 1914, as the struggle in the Balkans exploded into the First World War.

The War itself ignited on June 28, 1914, when the heir to the Austrian throne (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) was visiting the Bosnian capital city of Sarajevo along with his wife Sophie. It was an official visit, not a vacation, and crowds gathered to greet the couple. But a 19-year-old member of a youthful Bosnian resistance movement, Gavrilo Princip, shot the couple to death as they rode in an open automobile through the streets of Sarajevo. The killer was part of a large conspiracy and a bit earlier that day another member of the conspiracy had thrown a hand grenade at the Archduke. Princip was quickly captured and imprisoned, where he died of pneumonia a few years later.

Austria was obviously furious about the assassination and, with Germany’s support, demanded that Serbia end all resistance to Austria. Serbia agreed to some of the demands and offered to submit other demands to arbitration (decision) by an impartial international panel. But Austria would not wait; on July 28, 1914, it declared war against Serbia. Russian responded by mobilizing its army towards Austria and Germany.

This triggered the alliances. Germany responded to Russia’s mobilization of troops by declaring war on Russia four days later (on August 1st) and then Germany declared war on France another two days later (on August 3rd). Germany decided to invade and defeat France first before it had to fight Russia, and thereby avoid fighting a war on two fronts at the same time. This was the Schlieffen Plan to avoid a two-front war.

But Belgium, which was neutral, would not allow Germany to pass through its borders to invade France. So Germany invaded and defeated Belgium. Britain had a relationship with Belgium and Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914.

In summary, in a mere week an isolated act of violence between Austria and Serbia (sparked by a teenager) escalated into a world war between Britain, France and Russia (the Allied Powers) and Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers). Italy left the German side when it invaded the neutral Belgium, and later Italy joined the Allied Powers along with Japan. The Ottoman empire and Bulgaria eventually joined the Central Powers.

=== Initial Stages of the War ===

The fighting in the “Great War,” as it was called then (it is now called World War I), was savage and brutal. Army casualties totaled more than 37 million people, and there were another 10 million in civilian deaths. For weeks armies fought in trenches (deep, long ditches in the ground), spending day after day trying to kill their opponents lined up in an opposite trench several hundred feet away. This was known as trench warfare. Movement of ten or twenty feet in advance of a trench was a big success. Barbed wire marked off an area known as “no man’s land” between the two trenches, where anyone who went into this area would be shot on sight. Also, a deadly flu virus spread among the soldiers and infected the world, killing millions more. The late 1910s was a dreadful time for the world.

At the end of the war, the nations signed a peace agreement that was so misguided that it caused another great war to occur (World War II). So this World War I was bad news all around. Nothing was achieved by it. World War I was even [[pathetic]] in terms of military strategy. The first year and a half (1914-15) is known as “Entrenchment,” during which there were terrible casualties without either side gaining the upper hand. The next year, 1916, is known as “Continued Stalemate.” Get the idea? The following year, 1917, is known for the entrance by the United States and the withdrawal by Russia due to its communist revolution. In 1918 more nations withdrew from the war, and the major remaining nations of Britain, France, Germany and the United States ended the war with an armistice in November of that year.

=== The Colonies and the Great War ===

The colonies were not much help to the European powers, and attempting to use them for World War I left some bitterness. For example, Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which sought to forge a supply line to Russia. But these three colonies suffered heavy losses that left them bitter about Britain, and desirous of independence from the British empire.

Britain was successful in enlisting troops from the colonies of Egypt, India, Australia and New Zealand to defeat the weakened Ottomans. An Arab revolt against the Turks (German allies) was led by a British soldier named T. E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence, known as “Lawrence of Arabia.” His guerrilla warfare campaign against the Turks kept large numbers of troops tied up trying to suppress it, and it helped the British capture Aqaba and Damascus. Meanwhile, the Indian Mohandas Gandhi encouraged support of the British in the war as a way of building good will towards the Indian cause for independence. French colonies also lent some support to its efforts.

The German colonies could not help the Germans, because these colonies were captured by Allied Powers.

==World War I==

The “Great War,” which we now call World War I, lasted in Europe from 1914 to 1918. It was the first global war in world history. It was the first war that used aircraft, including airplanes and blimps. The “Bloody Red Baron,” made famous later by a humorous song featuring the dog “Snoopy”, was a German ace fighter pilot named Manfred von Richthofen (1892-1918). Considered the greatest fighter pilot ever, Richthofen shot down 80 enemy aircraft during the war before being killed by anti-aircraft fire from the ground.

World War I saw the first use of other weapons: machine guns, poisonous gas, large artillery and armored tanks. This war was a “total war” because the governments involved took control over the economy and factories, giving first priority to the goods needed for war. Wage and price controls were imposed, there was rationing of consumption of goods by civilians, and free speech was limited. Governments put out propaganda to maximize support for the war and dislike of the enemy.

With nearly all the young European men sent to battle, the women filled the factory jobs previously filled by men. Women tested munitions in factories, for example, and performed other strenuous jobs. Historians cite this shift in the workforce as being instrumental in changing attitudes about the proper role for women in society.

World War I was so deadly that it killed an entire generation of men. In 1918, a deadly strain of the influenza called the “Spanish flu” killed 20 million people, including both civilians and soldiers. In addition another 9 million soldiers were killed in battle, and 21 million injured. Hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turks as a “genocide” or racial cleansing. The Ottomans also deported nearly two million Armenians in retaliation for their support of the Allies.

As great as this cost of war was, the irony was that the war settled nothing and simply set the stage for another terrible world war about twenty years later. The Communist Revolution, which threatened the entire world for most of the 1900s, also occurred during World War I.

===The Two Sides===

On the side of the Central Powers were Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire. On other side were the Allies of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and, beginning in 1917, the United States.

Germany was still a very young country at the time of World War I. Recall that Germany became a nation under Otto von Bismarck in 1871, so it had only been in existence for a mere 43 years when hostilities broke out in 1914. But Germany had marvelous technology and a nationalistic spirit that did not expect to lose. Germany had a population of 68 million people in 1914, and had the best science and technology also. Germany feared no other nation, and had no reason to. It had every expectation to be able to defeat any European opponent.

===Great Battles of World War I===

This is easy, because there were not many great battles of World War I. It was mostly trench warfare, but highly deadly. Horrific poisonous gas was even used.

There were five great battles before large numbers of American soldiers reached Europe in 1917.

====First Battle of Marne====
[[Image:Schlieffen Plan.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Germany's Schieffen Plan, foiled by the First Battle of Marne]]
The First Battle of the Marne was a key conflict from September 6-12, 1914, which halted the Germany effort to capture France quickly and forced Germany to fight on two fronts afterward. Known to the French as the "Miracle of Marne," this battle saved the nation and Paris from German capture near the outset of the war. But the French losses were horrific: 250,000 men. German losses were similar. Still it was a victory for the Allied Powers in halting the German advance on the Western Front and thwarting the German Schlieffen Plan for winning the War.<ref>http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/plans.htm</ref> Russia, meanwhile, was not doing as well holding its own on the Eastern Front.<ref>Though tenacious in battle, Russia was not as industrialized as the West and its military was inferior.</ref>

====Gallipoli====

In April 1915, an amphibious Allied force landed on the Turkish peninsula of Gallipoli in a misguided attempt to knock Turkey out of the war. Though the Allies greatly outnumbered the Turks, Turkish fighters are extremely tenacious and they held their ground. The Allies did not properly understand the terrain and suffered from inadequate intelligence about the enemy. Nine months later the Allies had to withdraw, after suffering 46,000 deaths among over 250,000 casualties.

====Verdun====

In 1916, the Battle of Verdun between the French and Germans was perhaps the most demanding battle in world history. The struggle started when the Germans attacked Verdun, France, a city surrounded by a ring of underground forts. At least 220,000 soldiers died, and at least 480,000 were wounded in this 10-month struggle that accomplished nothing. At the end the front lines were in nearly the same locations as at the beginning.

====Somme====

Also in 1916, and also in France, the British and French armies met at the Somme River to begin a massive attack on the Germans in order to distract them from Verdun. This became the Battle of the Somme, and the fighting was even heard across the British channel in England. First the Allies “shelled” (fired many shots and bombs) at the Germans to weaken them, and then 100,000 British soldiers charged the enemy. But the shelling did not have its intended effect, as the Germans were dug in too deeply to be affected by it. On July 1, 1916, the Germans killed 20,000 of the British soldiers and wounded over 40,000, making it the single worst day for the British in their history. This battle, which did not succeed in moving trench lines, eventually involved over 2 million men along a 30-mile front. The British and French lost nearly 750,000 men.
 
====Third Battle of Ypres====
(Also known as the Battle of Passchendaele)

For 18 months the British hid 19 huge land mines underneath the German lines southeast of Ypres, Belgium, a location that had already seen battles in 1914 and 1915. The British then detonated those massive mines, and charged the German positions in July 1917. At first the strategy worked, as the Germans were confused and disorganized. But the British did not pursue the Germans as quickly as they should have. Rain began to drench the area in one of the wettest fall seasons there in years. Soon the British forces were stuck in a mountain of mud, and this Allied plan was yet another failure.

===The United States===

For three years (1914-1916) the United States attempted to stay out of the war. Europe had been having internal fights since the ancient time of the Greek empire, and the United States had friends on both sides of World War I. Many Americans were of German descent and sympathetic to the Central Powers, although most Americans were of British descent then (and now). If the United States were to intervene, then it was clear that it would enter the war on the side of the British, but most Americans were initially against getting involved.

The Germans were using submarines to patrol the Atlantic in order to intercept British ships. The German submarine was known as the “U-boat”, and it terrorized everyone. In 1915, still relatively early in the war, a U-boat sunk a massive British passenger liner known as the Lusitania. This one sinking killed 1,198 people, including 128 U.S. citizens. A member of the prominent Vanderbilt family, known for its railroad empire, was among the fatalities. The overall number of casualties was only a few hundred less than those who died on the Titanic when it hit an iceberg in 1912.

Americans were outraged by this German sneak attack on the Lusitania. But Germans claimed that the ship was carrying ammunition, and historians agree. Nevertheless, to avoid the loss of civilian life the Germans announced that it would stop attacking passenger liners and other neutral shipping.

By 1917, and after nearly three years of brutal war, the Germans were not so friendly any more. When the British implemented a naval blockade of Germany, preventing ships from entering or leaving its ports, the Germans announced they would sink any ship entering or leaving Britain. The U-boats went back into action and quickly sunk three American ships.

But many Americans, and the influential William Randolph Heart newspapers, were still against the United States entering this bloody European conflict. True, the Germans had sunk several American ships, but the Germans were simply doing what they must in response to the British blockade of Germany. Besides, the Germans warned the United States beforehand.

Another incident outraged Americans more. German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann sent an encrypted (secretly coded) telegram to the German ambassador to Mexico, which sought to induce Mexico to declare war on the United States. The British intelligence intercepted and deciphered (decoded) the telegram and gave it to the United States to help the British cause. President Woodrow Wilson made the contents of the telegram public.

The telegram promised that Germany would help Mexico regain land it had previously lost to the United States in the Mexican War (in the 1840s) if Mexico would declare war against the United States during World War I. Americans were outraged, and some newspapers doubted that the British self-serving version of the telegram was true. But then Zimmermann himself was foolish enough to confirm the promise (pledge) to Mexico in a public speech.

This news, plus the sinking of American ships by German submarines, swung American opinion towards entering the war against the Germans. Even though President Woodrow Wilson campaigned for the presidency on his promise to keep America out of World War I, he pushed Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2, 1917. The addition of the United States to the Allies tipped the power in their favor.
 
===Russia===

As the United States was entering the war on the side of the Allies, changes were occurring in Russia that would later cause it to withdraw from the side of the Allies and leave the war altogether. In 1917 Russia was having an internal revolution known as the Communist Revolution (discussed further below), which would alter the world for the rest of the century.

The losses and hardship of the war had weakened Russian Czar Nicholas II. He abdicated the throne in March 1917 in favor of a provisional government, which intended to continue fighting in the war. But in November 1917 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924), the leader of the Communist Party, overthrew the government. In July 1918, the communists executed every member of the czar’s family. (The bodies of two of the children have never been found, and years later a woman claimed to have been a girl in the family, but historians doubted it and DNA evidence did not support her claim.)

Lenin was one of the most influential persons in all of history. He was both a thinker and a revolutionary, which is a rare combination. An atheist, he personally converted in 1889 to Marxism (as previously formulated by Karl Marx). He obtained a law degree shortly afterwards, and by 1895 was a subversive who was arrested and sent to the frigid Siberia as punishment. Once he served his time he left for Western Europe, where he developed his ideas further and became a leader of the Bolsheviks. He returned to Russia after tsarist (czarist) rule ended in March 1917, and then Lenin led the Bolsheviks to power in the “October Revolution” (which was really in November under our Western calendar). He then ruled the Soviet Union and imposed a system of Marxism-Leninism (communism) that remained in force there until the 1990s.

Lenin quickly arranged for peace with Germany to end Russia’s support of the Allies in the war. In March 1918, Lenin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, by which Russia gave to Germany much territory, including what is now Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia. This was a humiliating defeat for Russia, but it was simply too weak to fight the Germans further.

===The Western Front===

The exit of Russia allowed Germany to shift all of its troops to the western front, saving Germany from having to continue a two-front war. Almost immediately it appeared that Germany would win, as it unleashed all of its power against France in March 1918.

The Germans launched five major campaigns in a four month period in 1918 on the Western Front. The Germans had technology and lots of energy. They had elite storm-troopers with automatic rifles, light machine guns, flame-throwers and artillery fire. They used poisonous mustard gas lavishly. They easily defeated the British Fifth Army. The Germans were advancing and taking property.

But fresh American troops entered the scene. In the Second Battle of the Marne in July 1918, the Allies started winning. Nine American divisions fought in this battle about 75 miles northeast of Paris. The Germans started this battle on another one of their offensives, but the Americans turned the tables and enabled the Allies to win it. Casualties were enormous for everyone, including the Americans. Former President Teddy Roosevelt’s son was killed in this battle.

American Capt. Jesse Woolridge, 38th Inf., 3rd Division described the battle as follows:<ref>http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/2marne.htm </ref>

:“It’s God’s truth that one Company of American soldiers beat and routed a full regiment of picked shock troops of the German Army ... At ten o’clock ... the Germans were carrying back wounded and dead [from] the river bank and we in our exhaustion let them do it - they carried back all but six hundred which we counted later and fifty-two machine guns... We had started with 251 men and 5 lieutenants...I had left 51 men and 2 second lieutenants ....”

As the Americans and the Allies advanced toward Germany, the Ottoman Turks and Bulgarians surrendered. There was a revolution in Austria-Hungary that overthrew its government, and Germany would not recognize that new government. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated his throne in Germany on November 1918, and the Germans formed a new republic. Members of the German republic signed an armistice (agreement to stop fighting) on November 11, 1918. The Great War was over.

===Terms of Peace===

The war ended in the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, but the terms of peace remained unresolved. The Allies convened at the historic Palace of Versailles outside Paris in January 1918 to discuss peace terms. The representatives at the Paris Peace Conference included Woodrow Wilson from the United States, David Lloyd George from Great Britain, Vittorio Orlando from Italy, and Georges Clemenceau from France.

President Wilson wanted his “Fourteen Points” adopted as the peace treaty. His proposal included moving national borders, creating new nations, and allowing ethnic groups to choose their own governments. His main point (#14) was to create a new entity known as the League of Nations to resolve international conflicts in the future. The American people never supported the League of Nations and the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty establishing it, and President Wilson died thinking he was a failure. But less than 30 years later the United States did join a similar entity known as the United Nations, though it remains controversial and many Americans oppose it.

France wanted to punish Germany for the war, while Britain wanted to disarm Germany. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, did both. It imposed limits on the size of the German army and prohibited it from having submarines, an air force, or factories to make weapons. It could not import weapons either. A “war guilt” clause placed all the blame for the war on Germany, and it was required to pay reparations of $33 billion over a 30-year period. Germany lost its colonies in Africa and the Pacific. Germany had to give its territory of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The Allies and neutral nations created the League of Nations, which the United States never joined, and Germany and Russia were initially prohibited from joining.

It is said that hindsight is always 20/20 (which describes perfect eyesight), and the mistake of the above approach seems so obvious today. No matter how wrong Germany was in World War I, it was an even bigger mistake to humiliate it and try to force it to pay far more than it could afford. Germany suffered huge losses like everyone else, and simply could not satisfy those financial obligations. In short, the peace treaty was too harsh on Germany, and it would rise again in anger to try to destroy its enemies.

The Allies negotiated separate treaties with each of Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire. These treaties created new countries of Austria, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia out of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. Russia lost Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland and Latvia, which it had ceded to Germany in withdrawing from the war. Russia also lost Romania. All these territories became independent countries. The Allies took away territories in the Middle East (Southwest Asia) from the Ottoman empire, reducing it to present-day Turkey. The Middle East territories were then organized as mandates, such that France controlled Jordan and Syria and Britain controlled Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq.

The Treaty of Versailles angered many countries in addition to Germany. The U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, and instead chose to sign a separate treaty with the Central Powers later. Italy and Japan were unhappy that they did not receive new territory the way that France and Britain had. Colonies of European powers had sent soldiers to the Allied cause, and were upset that they did not receive independence. New countries were created by the Treaty of Versailles without regard to language or ethnicity, angering peoples affected by the arbitrary new borders. Most of the original members of the League of Nations were non-European countries, making it ineffective in its goal. But most of all, Germany was furious at the “guilt clause” and the massive reparations that it could not pay.

The United States and Japan emerged the strongest economically after the war, as their involvement was much less than for the other combatants, and the war was not fought on their soil. Business opportunities for these two nations were enormous after the war.

==Communism==

The taking root of communism in Russia during World War I was perhaps the single most important political event of the 1900s (the 20th century). It deserves greater study.

Communism, like it or not, is a powerful idea. It embodies this basic complaint known to every child: “That’s not fair.” Communism takes advantage of the very powerful human emotion of envy or jealousy. By forcing everyone to have the same wealth (or lack of wealth), communism creates a superficial equality for everyone.

Even Jesus’ Apostles complained about perceived advantages among each other, reflecting their human side. In one passage, Peter complained about what would become preferential treatment for John. In another passage, several Apostles complained about the request of James and John to sit next to Jesus in Heaven. But in many parables (like the [[Parable of the Talents]]), Jesus taught ''inequality'' rather than equality. It is clear that demands for equality in wealth are not based on Christianity, but are based on non-Christian materialism. Put another way, trying to require a superficial equality is based on man’s incomplete view, not God’s.

Why and how did communism begin in Russia in 1917? We learn that next.

===Pre-Revolution Russian Policies===

Russian czars were harsh on the peasants for decades before 1917. The Romanov czars who ruled Russia in the 1800s allowed severe shortages in fuel and bread for the peasants, and highly unequal land distribution. Russia did not convert quickly from a farming (agrarian) economy to an industrial one, and feudalism bound serfs to nobles far longer than in the West. Russian defeats in wars, such as the Crimean War, were hurtful. One of the reasons Russia kept losing wars was its inadequate industrialization and transportation for soldiers and supplies.

Czar Alexander II rose to power after the Crimean War and attempted to modernize the country. He freed the serfs in 1861, but then made them pay the Russian government for land, which the government was buying from nobles. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881.

Alexander III next became czar and continued the modernization of Russia. But he used a secret police to solidify his own power, and censored the press. He exiled political dissidents to the frightfully cold Siberia. He also oppressed ethnic minorities, such as the Jewish people, and made them live in segregated areas subject to “pogroms”, which was organized violence against them. Alexander III also forced everyone to speak Russian rather than ethnic languages.

Czar Alexander III’s son was Nicholas II, who became czar in 1894 and is now recognized as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church. As autocratic as his father, Nicholas II continued the attempt to modernize (industrialize) Russia. He used government to create railroads and factories. His regime built the Trans-Siberian Railway. But all this industrialization brought some problems, such as low wages and harsh working conditions.

===Early Signs of Revolution===

By the late 1800s the views of Karl Marx had reached Russia, and by 1903 there were two Marxist groups: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks sought more industrialization before seeking support from the proletariat (working class) for a revolution. The Bolsheviks were more extreme, wanting a violent revolution by a small group of people as soon as possible. Their leader was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who was exiled in Europe but still in charge of his followers in Russia.

Russia next lost another war, this time humiliated by the small islands of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. The credibility of the czar was weakened. Then, in January 1905, workers and their families marched on the czar’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition for improve working conditions in factories and to request a national elected legislature as in western countries. Czar Nicholas II was not there, but his soldiers responded by shooting the protesters, killing up to 1000 of them.

More violent protests ensued, and Czar Nicholas II allowed the creation of the first-ever elected Russian parliament, called the Duma. It met initially in May 1906, when it was led by moderates trying to imitate the constitutional monarchy of Britain. But Nicholas dissolved the parliament after it met for only ten weeks. It did occasionally meet again in the future, but never seemed to have any power.

Once World War I broke out, Nicholas moved to the front lines and left his wife, Czarina (Tsarina) Alexandra, in charge of running the country. Alexandra’s son Alexis, however, developed a bleeding condition known as hemophilia, which means blood has difficulty clotting. A small cut just bleeds and bleeds in a frightful manner. His mother, the czarina, understandably was fraught with worry about his condition. She increasingly relied on the only person who seemed able to stop her son’s bleeding: a peasant-turned-monk named Rasputin. Rasputin took advantage of this trust and began making decisions for the country, granting government positions to friends, and causing everyone (especially the nobles) to fear him. Rasputin had a mystical quality that has inspired many books and stories about him. He had converted to Christianity at the age of 18 and when everyone else failed to help the boy’s bleeding disorder, Rasputin claimed healing powers that would help. The nobles hated Rasputin because he was a peasant who now had power over them, and the nobles plotted to assassinate him.

In a Russian tradition that continues to this day, the method of choice for assassination was poisoning. The nobles laced some pastries with enough poison to immediately kill a horse, and many times more what was necessary to kill a human immediately. Rasputin ate several of the pastries and seemed to enjoy it. He drank some wine. Nothing happened to him. His assassins watched and waited for hours. Rasputin was completely enjoying himself and showed no ill effects whatsoever from the massive dose of poison. Finally, after distracting Rasputin by pointing to a crucifix, a noble shot him point blank. Rasputin fell to the floor and appeared to die. His assassins left him there. But later, when one returned to make sure Rasputin was dead, he sprung to his feet and began shaking his assassin by his shoulders. Then Rasputin ran out, promising to tell the czarina. The assassins shot him again and again, and then beat him with a dumbbell, and he still was not dead. Then they tied him up and tossed him into the half-frozen river. He eventually died from drowning, on Dec. 17, 1916.

Meanwhile, peasant life was becoming more difficult. The war was taking its toll. Inflation was severe, and fuel and food were hard to find. Riots began in March 1917 to protest the hardship. A large protest against Czar Nicholas in March 1917 (the March Revolution) forced the czar to abdicate the throne (and not allow his heir Alexis to take it either). A provisional government was then established with Alexander Kerensky as the leader instead of a czar.

Kerensky continued the war despite the protests against poor conditions. Revolutionaries formed “soviets”, which were local groups of peasants or laborers, and which sometimes included soldiers. The Germans sent Lenin back to Russia in the hope of dividing Russia further and causing it to withdraw from the war. The German strategy worked, but at a huge price to the world.

===The Communist Revolution===
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|Lenin]]
Lenin arrived in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) in April 1917, and he quickly seized control for the Bolsheviks in the largest Russian cities. Then, in November 1917, he organized armed factory workers known as the Red Guards to march on the Winter Palace in Petrograd. There Lenin’s Red Guards arrested the leaders of the Russian provisional government.

Soon Lenin took ownership of the factories and gave control to the workers, and redistributed land among the peasants. He also ended the war with Germany, as described above.

The West was alarmed by these developments and supported a “White Army” to fight Lenin’s “Red Army.” Civil war resulted in Russia that lasted from 1918 to 1920, killing ten million people during the war, and another five million due a famine that followed the war. But the Red Army, headed by Leon Trotsky, won.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) had been a participant with Lenin in the communist revolution in Russia in 1917. Trotsky had joined the Bolsheviks and was part of the October Revolution. But when Lenin later died, Trotsky had a power struggle with Joseph Stalin. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in Western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately, and expelled Trotsky in 1927 from the political party and then exiled him entirely from Russia in 1929. Trotsky eventually settled in Mexico in 1937, where he was hunted down and murdered by a Stalin assassin posing as a gardener. Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement, “He that will not work shall not eat,” Trotsky’s famous criticism of the communist regime that ultimately developed was this: “Those who do not '''''obey''''' do not eat.”

Communism and the Russian Civil War from 1818 to 1820 left the country in economic ruin. In March 1921, Lenin announced his New Economic Policy (NEP) to restore trade and industry to the country. The NEP permitted some capitalism to create incentives, and it allowed for some foreign investment. Peasants could sell surplus crops. Profits by merchants were allowed. But government still controlled all major industries. This small amount of private ownership applied only to small factories, farms and stores. Still, it helped improve the economy by 1928.

Politically, Lenin established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922, allowing Lenin’s central government to control many socialized republics. In 1924, the Bolsheviks began calling themselves “Communists” and established a constitution. But there was only one political party, and it held all the power. It was the Communist Party.

===Joseph Stalin===

As noted above, Joseph Stalin won the power struggle when Lenin died in 1924. Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.

Stalin was one of the worst murderers in the history of the world. He starved to death perhaps 20 million Ukrainians. He conducted the Great Purge from 1934 to 1939, in which he executed all opponents. He established youth groups to brainwash other youths in how great Stalin was, and how great communism was. He persecuted all religious groups and destroyed houses of worship. He controlled the press.

Stalin had women work in factories just like men, in addition to the women’s chores of homemaking and raising children. Stalin converted all schools into instruments of propaganda to teach students to love communism and worship the state. [[Abortion]] skyrocketed in Russia at rates many times the rest of the world. Alcoholism was rampant also.

Stalin continued to industrialize the Soviet Union, which included the former country of Russia along with many surrounding “soviets”. Stalin established a command economy whereby the government made all economic decisions. Under such a regime, shortages became widespread and people had to wait in line for hours to obtain basic necessities. Stalin announced a Five-Year Plan to try to increase production of industrial items like electricity, oil, steel and coal. This was a failure, although production did increase a bit. Stalin next tried a second Five-Year Plan to make up for the failure of the first one.

This was how the communist Stalin killed perhaps 20 million in the Ukraine. In 1928, Stalin seized millions of private farms, and combined them into large, government-owned farms. Stalin did this to punish the Ukrainian kulaks, who were wealthier peasants who had done well (through their own hard work) during Lenin’s NEP. Stalin’s enforcement of collective farming against the kulaks caused a huge famine in the Ukraine, and the famine resulted in the death of an estimated 20 million victims. In sum, the communist Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in world history, and also one of the dumbest.

 
==Nationalism in Eastern, Southern and Southwestern Asia==

===India===

The British did not grant independence to its colony of India immediately after World War I, as many Indians hoped. Great Britain had no intention of relinquishing this vast subcontinent in Asia, which was valuable strategically. To control rebellions in India, Britain passed a law in 1919 allowing imprisonment for two years without a jury trial. Hindus and Muslims alike sought independence instead, and formed a peaceful demonstration at Amritsar, which was the capital of the Punjab area. But a panicked British commander instructed his troops to fire on the Hindu and Muslim protesters, killing 400 in what is known as the Amritsar Massacre. Indians nationwide were outraged and demanded independence.

A spiritual Indian leader emerged who was ultimately able to win Indian independence: Mohandas K. Gandhi, known as the Mahatma (“Great Soul”). He urged peaceful civil disobedience against the British, calling on Indians to refuse to pay taxes to Britain and to refuse to attend British schools. He also called on Indians to stop trading with Britain, particularly with respect to clothing. Britain, which was itself being weakened by socialism, was not as strong economically as it used to be. Gandhi also campaigned for the Indian National Congress to change from an elite or wealthy group into more of a people’s voice that could advocate independence. Gandhi’s approach drew upon Christian concepts as well as his native Hinduism.

Gandhi supported peaceful protests. He led the Salt March in 1930 for 240 miles to the sea, to symbolize how Indians could obtain salt from evaporated salt water rather than buy it from (and pay taxes to) Britain. A law required Indians to buy salt from the British government, but Gandhi’s march peacefully disobeyed that law and created much publicity. Gandhi and many of his supporters were eventually arrested for some of their protests.

At one point a British leader agreed to meet with Gandhi, who then attended wearing the simple Hindu clothing of a single cloth gown. Offended by this, some British demanded an explanation for what appeared to them to be disrespectful clothing for a formal meeting. Gandhi responded that the British official, who was dressed up in a formal suit and tie, was wearing enough clothes for both of them!

Eventually Gandhi’s protest efforts paid off, as the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act in 1935. This established self-rule at a local level and allowed some democratic elections. Muslims, however, feared majority Hindu rule and requested a separate state for Muslims. The Muslim League endorsed the creation of a new country called “Pakistan” for the predominantly Muslim population of that region. Subsequently India and Pakistan were created, and they are fully independent today. Pakistan is predominantly Muslim and India is predominantly Hindu, and the two countries are not friendly with each other.

===China===

China was always independent, but it was not always a unified nation. The unified Qing dynasty ruled from 1664 to 1912, but it was overthrown by the Revolutionary Alliance, led by a doctor named Sun Yixian who had been living in the United States. Perhaps inspired by what he saw in America, Sun led the Nationalist Party ([[Guomindang]]) to become the first leader of the new republic China. Sun quickly turned over power (after only 6 weeks) to Yuan Shiakai, who then ruled as a military dictator.

When Yuan died, however, civil war broke out and warlords ruled amid chaos. The opium trade returned, irrigation failed, and World War I added to the general misery. Millions of peasants died due to a famine during the war. Lasting central rule was not achieved.

China sided with the Allies during World War I, and offered some limited assistance. China was hoping to obtain return of land that Germany controlled in China. Instead, the Treaty of Versailles gave that land to Japan. Feeling betrayed, the Chinese angrily demonstrated against that decision with the May Fourth Movement, which Guomindang supported.

Communism began to creep in China, and some abandoned Sun Yixian’s vision of democracy. Mao Zedong, a Marxist, founded the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 in Shanghai. Sun himself then accepted Lenin’s offer of receiving communist military advisers in China.

After Sun died in 1925, he was replaced as head of the Nationalist Party by a businessman named Jiang Jieshi who opposed communism and even executed communist leaders in April 1927. That destroyed the Chinese Communist Party, and Jiang became president of the Nationalist Republic of China in 1928. Britain and the United States recognized his government.

But gradually the Chinese Communist Party made inroads in China, advocating more land for peasants, speaking out against the practice of foot-binding, and seeking a right for women to divorce. The Party itself divided land that it controlled among peasants. Jiang’s government did not improve peasant life and became less and less democratic.

A civil war broke out between the Communists and Nationalists in 1930. Mao Zedong’s communist peasants received training in guerrilla warfare and fought hard. But Jiang’s army surrounded the Communist army, and in 1934 forced the communists to go on the Long March, which was a 6,000-mile retreat back to northwestern China. Few made it back alive.

Meanwhile an aggressive Japan invaded Manchuria, an area of northeast China rich in iron and coal deposits needed by Japanese industry. This Manchurian invasion was the beginning of World War II in Asia. Japan followed this with an invasion of China in 1937 along the Yangtze River. The Chinese civil war stopped temporarily to defend against the Japanese invasion.

===Southwest Asia===

There were three noteworthy nationalism movements in Southwest Asia in the early 20th century: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Persia (now Iran). All three are Muslim countries.

Turkey was formed in 1923, soon after the break-up of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I and an invasion of Turkey by the Greeks in 1919. Mustafa Kemal was the leader who deposed the final Ottoman sultan in 1922, and then became the president of Turkey in 1923.

Although Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim, Kemal established secular rule through reliance on a strong military. He abolished Islamic courts and gave women the right to vote and the right to hold government positions. Kemal established a legal system based on that in the West. Today Turkey is the only Muslim country that uses democratic elections, not including the elections in Iraq protected by the United States military. But Turkey is run today more by military control than by democratic self-government; for example, the military bans the wearing of the popular head coverings for Muslim women in government buildings.

The British attempted to rule Persia (now Iran) after World War I, but the Muslims revolted and Reza Shah Pahlavi rose to power in 1925. In 1935 the name of the country changed from Persia to Iran. The shah enjoyed full power, like a king. He built the infrastructure and allowed greater rights for women than under Islam.

There was less modernization in Saudi Arabia, which was unified beginning in 1902 under the leadership of Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud, who named the country “Saudi Arabia” in 1932. Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s and 1930s, along with discoveries in Kuwait, Iran and Iraq. Western countries provided the technology for drilling the oil, but the Western dependency on that oil has been a source of conflict ever since.

==Science and Art in the Early 20th Century==

Once World War I ended, there were new achievements in science, technology, literature, music and architecture during the 1920s.

===Science===

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

The most notable 20th century accomplishment in science was the discovery of quantum mechanics by European physicists. This remarkable discovery of subatomic behavior ultimately produced about a dozen Nobel Prizes and is the basis for the entire computer industry today. The leading physicists included Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Max Planck of Germany, Enrico Fermi of Italy, Niels Bohr of Denmark, Erwin Schrödinger of Austria and Paul Dirac of England. Perhaps the most brilliant of the group was Enrico Fermi, who was a devout Christian extraordinary in both his experimental and theoretical accomplishments.

The insight of quantum mechanics was that subatomic particles act more like waves, and are never in a specific place at a specific time until they are observed. Quantum mechanics led to the development of small transistors, which today form the integrated circuits in every computer and electronic device, from cell phones to IPods to laptops to radios to digital clocks and to many other examples of technology.

'''The Theory of Relativity'''

Though quantum mechanics was the most productive scientific achievement of the 20th century, most people are more likely to have heard about the “theory of relativity,” which was also developed during that century. Unlike most advances in physics, the theory of relativity was proposed based on mathematical theory rather than observation. The theory rests on two postulates (assumptions) that are difficult to test, and then derives mathematically what the physical consequences should be. Those two postulates are that the speed of light can never be increased, and that all laws of physics are the same in every (inertial) frame of reference no matter where it is or how fast it is traveling. This theory rejects Newton’s view of gravitation and replaces it with a concept that there is a continuum of space and time, and that large masses (like the sun) bend space in a manner similar to how a finger can depress an area of a balloon. From this proposed bending of space the expression arose that “space is curved.”<ref>Later experiments demonstrated that space is not curved overall, and that it is actually flat.</ref>
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|a drawing of how a signal would dip into a gravity well around the [[sun]] according to the theory of relativity]]
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and others promoted the theory of relativity. Contrary to public perception, the theory of relativity had nothing to do with the development of the atom bomb or any other technology. Only one Nobel Prize (in 1993) has ever been given that relates to relativity, and the validity of that particular award is questionable. Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons, have never been found despite expensive government projects (like “LIGO”<ref>http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/</ref>) that search for them. Many observed phenomena attributed to the theory of relativity, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton’s theory. The theory of relativity conflicts with quantum mechanics, and Einstein himself never accepted quantum mechanics.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Brit Sir Arthur Eddington, the top English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 to try to prove the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity predicts twice the bending of light around massive objects compared to Newton’s theory, and an eclipse is required to darken the sun so that the starlight may be seen in proximity to the sun. Eddington liked publicity and probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize, and upon his return to England declared that his observations proved the theory of relativity by observing the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. That was good enough for reporters and historians, but the Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award. Recent analysis of Eddington’s work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data was inconclusive about the theory of relativity.

Eddington then promoted the theory of relativity to the public in his book entitled the ''Mathematical Theory of Relativity'' (1923). As the title suggests, this theory was more a mathematical vision of how the universe should be, rather than what it actually was. When a reporter asked Eddington whether only three people even understood the theory, Eddington comically replied, “Who’s the third?” Later Eddington opposed a theory about massive stars known as white dwarfs put forth by Indian physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but Eddington was proven wrong and Chandrasekhar won a Nobel Prize for his work. Eddington finally lost all credibility when he first insisted that a physical constant (the fine structure constant) measured to be close to 1/136 must precisely equal 1/136 to make the math easier, but when later measurements suggested a value closer to 1/137 Eddington insisted that it must precisely equal to 1/137 instead. He was wrong both times. When World War II threatened the future of England, Eddington was a conscious objector and refused to participate.

Just as “social Darwinism” arose from Darwinism, many seized upon the theory of relativity to apply it in a vague way to morality and social issues. “All things are relative” became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. As a law student, Barack Obama was given credit by a liberal professor in an article claiming that the theory of relativity could support a right to abortion. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity.

'''The Big Bang?'''

Another scientific controversy in the early 20th century concerned whether there was an origin or initial moment for the universe. Increasingly some physicists insisted in the 1920s was that the universe must have always existed in a “steady state,” and that creation was myth. But in 1927 a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges-Henri Lemaître, proposed that the universe must have begun in an initial massive “explosion” like a creation. He was ridiculed for years, with one prominent physicist making fun of his hypothesis by calling it the “Big Bang.” But in 1929, Edwin Hubble, another devout Christian, discovered evidence supporting the “Big Bang” and now most physicists accept this theory (and the name, even though it was first used to make fun of the theory). Research in the 1960s in central New Jersey discovered further support for the Big Bang, for which the Bell Labs scientists received the Nobel Prize.

'''Other 20th Century Theories'''

Other thinkers in the early 1900s included Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). He was the atheistic father of psychoanalysis, emphasizing the supposed importance of one’s unconscious mind and symbolic dreams. He was a professor in Vienna, Austria. In 1938 he fled the Nazis by traveling to England, where he was welcomed and became popular due to his atheism. Freud proposed that the human psyche consists of three parts -- ego, super-ego, and id -- and that defense mechanisms are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id. A “Freudian slip” is something mistakenly spoken that supposedly reflects a view of one’s subconscious. Critics of Freud point out that he fabricated some of his data in order to make some of his claims. Late in life, Freud asked his doctor to kill him, which his doctor did.

===Technology===

The mass production of affordable cars had a tremendous effect on society, influencing everything from teenage life to families moving to the suburbs with the father commuting to work each day. Arrival of the airplane also had an enormous impact, with Charles Lindbergh flying solo for the first time from New York to Paris in 1927. Amelia Earhart was the first woman to cross the Atlantic by solo flight, in 1932.

In 1920, KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, became the first commercial radio station, and radio quickly developed into the center of entertainment for families. Use of radio spread most quickly in the United States, where there is freedom of speech, and slowly in other countries where speech is controlled or regulated by the government. Movies caught on in the 1920s in silent form and then, with sound, in the late 1930s. ''The Wizard of Oz'' in 1939 was the first color movie.

===Literature and Philosophy===

After World War I several novels deplored the apparent meaninglessness of that war, and war in general. In ''All Quiet on the Western Front'' (1929), World War I veteran Erich Maria Remarque describes the war in an unflattering way from the perspective of German soldiers. American Ernest Hemingway’s ''A Farewell to Arms'' (1929) was also critical of war.

Author and attorney Franz Kafka penned several classic stories illustrating how humans are alienated from a hostile, unintelligible and indifferent modern world. Several of his works became classics after Kafka died, including ''The Trial'' (1925) and ''The Castle'' (1926). In ''The Trial'', an innocent man finds himself a defendant in a trial that he cannot understand, and he is sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t do. Kafka’s most famous short story was ''The Metamorphosis'' (1915), in which someone awakens to realize that he has been transformed into a massive cockroach that has been fatally injured. Throughout Kafka’s works he expressed and sympathized with the feeling of being an outsider, of being someone who is not in the “in group.” Kafka himself lacked religion and suffered from bouts of insanity as he grew older.

Philosophers increasingly abandoned religion. Frenchman Jean Paul Sartre and the German Karl Jaspers advanced a new philosophy called “existentialism”, which taught that life has no meaning at all and that neither God not morality exist. Existentialism was a rebellion against all philosophy, seeking freedom for each person to form whatever value system he likes. Rather than "I think therefore I am," and existentialist might say, "I exist therefore I think." An atheist, Sartre’s most famous work was ''L'âge de raison'' (''The Age of Reason'') (1945). Towards the end of his life he expressed sympathy with the terrorists who kidnapped and killed Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, asserting that it was “perfectly scandalous” how the French press criticized the terrorism.

Prior work in the 1800s by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the basis for the existentialism movement in the 1900s. Nietzsche is famous for his statement that “God is dead.” Nietzsche criticized Western democracy, preferring instead rule by elitist groups who could become almost superhuman through effort and courage. Nietzsche himself went insane later in life, but many Germans promoted his ideas after World War I as Germans struggled to find self-esteem.

===Music and Art===

Americans made one of its rare artistic contributions to the world in the form of jazz, a new style of music developed in New Orleans in the 1920s. It used irregular tempo and rhythms and combined African American music with European traditions. New dance styles also became popular, including the Charleston dance that featured much movement.

In ''The Rite of Spring'' (1913), Russian-born composer Igor Stravinsky broke with traditional views of music by having different musical instruments play in different keys simultaneously.

Architect Frank Lloyd Wright became world-renowned for his building design, which emphasized functionalism. Architect Walter Gropius of Germany founded the Bauhaus school to expand on Wright’s work. Both felt that new buildings should feature designs that encouraged movement and facilitated the intended use. Wright’s most famous designs are the Guggenheim Museum in upper Manhattan and the Falling Water house in rural Pennsylvania.

In paintings, expressionism emerged based on distorted forms and bold colors. Pablo Picasso, the most famous artist of the 20th century, had a style that became known as “cubism”, which modified the images of his subjects to fit geometric shapes. Just as existentialism questioned the meaning of life, an artistic movement called Dadaism (1916-1924) consisted of artwork that emphasized meaningless and arbitrary designs. Later Surrealism produced art that appeared dreamlike.

==Postwar Europe==

After World War I, there were no major monarchies left in Europe. Nations turned to democracy, but were not always well-prepared for it. Numerous political parties formed, and in the parliamentary system of democracy common in Europe, coalitions are required among several political parties to form a majority that can rule. (In a parliamentary system, a coalition of political parties runs both the executive and legislative branches together, and there is no separation of powers like in the United States.) It took time for European people to adjust to a parliamentary democracy in place of a monarchy.

Germany struggled with democracy in its new Weimar Republic. This government was already disliked by the German people for having signed the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. The huge reparations required by that Treaty caused an even bigger problem. Germany simply could not pay.

So Germany began printing money, and lots of it. This made it easier for Germany to pay its reparations, but caused enormous inflation in Germany. People were outraged at the loss in value of their savings, and hardship resulted as the German mark (its currency) became almost worthless. The German people disapproved even more of their own government.

An international committee funded by the United States and England intervened to try to save German’s economy. The Dawes Plan, named after American financier Charles G. Dawes, implemented in 1924 the committee’s recommendations that Germany begin paying 1,000,000,000 gold marks in the first year and increasing to 2,500,000,000 by 1928. It also called for a loan of 800,000,000 marks ($200 million) to Germany. The Dawes Plan ignored the original reparations set by the Treaty of Versailles. By 1929 the Dawes Plan was considered a big success and financial controls over Germany were relaxed. Germany factories were producing again at prewar levels and inflation was no longer a big problem.

World leaders made a silly attempt to agree to peace in the future. In 1925, the French and German prime ministers signed a treaty stating that the two countries would never go to war against each other again. Gustav Stresemann was the German prime minister and Aristide Briand was the French prime minister. Germany agreed to honor the current borders of France and Belgium, and as a result was admitted to the League of Nations. This agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, because there was no way to enforce.

In 1928 Briand then signed a similar agreement with Frank Kellogg, the Secretary of State for the United States. This Kellogg-Briand Pact prohibited war, and was signed by almost every country. But it was silly because it could not be enforced. It would take a war to make a country comply with it!

==The Great Depression==

The complex political alliances that led to World War I were replaced by a complex set of financial relations after World War I. The Great War was very, very expensive and there were many debts to pay off after the war. But in order for Britain and France to pay their debts to the United States, Germany had to pay reparations to Britain and France. In order for Germany to be able to reparations, it had to receive loans from American banks and also benefit from a strong global market. Meanwhile, colonies were already beginning to struggle due to a decreased demand in raw materials by industrialized nations, which had learned to make more with less. Any economic downturn in a major country could have set off a financial chain reaction that would be hurtful to all. In 1928 American lenders did begin pulling money out of Europe to invest in the more successful American stock market, and that was an early warning sign of potential trouble.

The American economy had been booming during the “Roaring Twenties” (1920s). Everything looked good. In 1920, the politically conservative President Warren Harding was elected president. He favored limited government so that free enterprise could thrive, and his economic policies benefited the nation and the world for a decade.

But President Harding died from an illness in 1923. He was succeeded by his Vice President Calvin Coolidge, who was conservative but not as much as Harding. When Coolidge declined to run for reelection in 1928, Republican Herbert Hoover took office. In his first year in office, on “Black Thursday” Oct. 24, 1929, the stock market in New York crashed. Stock prices plummeted and many lost everything. This was the beginning the Great Depression in the United States, which then pulled down the economies in European nations also.

Economists debate the possible causes of the Great Depression to this day. There is no consensus in favor of one single cause. There is no apparent reason why a drop in stock market value alone would cause a massive depression. Only those owning the stocks that fell in value were immediately hurt. But many had bought stock “on margin,” which means on a mere promise to pay. When their stocks fell in value, those buyers could not pay their obligations on stock they had already purchased. That means the losses were felt far beyond the stock owners, and were felt by many others in the economy, including banks. Laws changed afterwards to guard against this ripple effect. The stock market crash hurt public confidence, and people stopped buying things. It was a vicious cycle.

Perhaps it was an overreaction by government that really caused the Great Depression. Economists criticize the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930, which imposed high trade barriers on imports to protect American manufacturers, as a huge mistake. Foreigners retaliated by refusing to buy American products, and factories, banks and stores closed in increasing numbers. Unemployment that was only 5 million in 1930 skyrocketed to 13 million in 1932. The Great Depression had hit.

The effects of the Great Depression were clearer than its cause. Weaker American banks meant weaker European banks. Leaders were voted out of office worldwide. In the United States, voters replaced Republican Herbert Hoover with Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who instituted the “New Deal” by which government assisted farms and business and created public projects to generate jobs. The program was unsuccessful in pulling the country out of the depression, and probably delayed economic recovery.

Island countries like Great Britain and Japan were hit hardest because they depended most on trade rather than farming. Voters replaced the liberal Labour Party in Britain with conservatives in 1931, but tariffs and taxes increased anyway. In Japan, its silk export industry collapsed and it struggled to pay for fuel. It turned to a stronger military to acquire what it needed.

For Scandinavia and Latin America, the depression meant more government control. The governments in the socialistic Scandinavian countries increased their aid to citizens and protected retirement funds. In Latin America, government increased planning and asserted more independence from the U.S. and Europe.

France was not hurt as badly due to its strong farming economy. But a coalition of communists, socialists and moderates formed the Popular Front to enact laws to help workers, including pay increases and a maximum 40-hour work week. Inflation took away any gains for workers by decreasing the real value of their earnings, and unemployment remained high.

== References ==

<references/>
 

[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 11}}