Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Density

2010-10-01T17:30:46Z

Schifra: wording

'''Density''' is the amount of [[mass]] an object has per unit [[volume]] that the object occupies.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> The most common units of density include kg/L or kg/m3 in [[metric]] units, and lb/gal or lb/ft3 in [[imperial]] units.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Treaty of Versailles

2007-05-24T22:22:40Z

Schifra:

The '''Treaty of Versailles''' was signed in 1919, it was the treaty that ended [[World War I]]. France wanted to punish [[Germany]] for the War, and Britain wanted to disarm it. This treaty accomplished both. It limited the size of the German army and prohibited it from having submarine, an air force, or factories to make weapons. Germany was also required to pay reparations of $33 billion over a thirty year period. In the end, the peace treaty proved far too harsh on Germany and only created hard feeling that made it easier for Hitler to come into power. It can be claimed that just the opposite of its intention was achieved since it finally lead to more war. It doesn't excuse the deeds of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Versailles, Treaty of}}
[[Category:World War I]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2007-05-24T22:10:21Z

Schifra: /* Controversy? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2007-05-24T22:09:54Z

Schifra: /* Controversy? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserve severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2007-05-24T22:09:30Z

Schifra: /* Controversy? */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of catholics. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserve severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T18:39:07Z

Schifra: links added

'''Extrasolar planets''' or '''exoplanets''' are planets that orbit stars other than the sun.

Planets have no light source of their own, and most extrasolar planets are too far away to be seen by the light they reflect from their own suns, however some have been detected by examining light being blocked from the star that is being orbited.

== Methods of detection ==

=== Astrometry ===
A star and planet orbit about a spot that is the center of gravity of the system known as the [[barycenter]]. For the Sun and Jupiter, the barycenter is 1.068 solar radii. With larger planets orbiting closer to the star, it is possible to detect the movement of the star against the distant background. This method was used to detect a planet orbiting Gliese 876.

=== Radial velocity ===
Instead of mapping the position of the star against the background, it is also possible to detect the minute [[Doppler shift]] in the star's spectrum as it is tugged by the planet. This method is responsible for the majority of extrasolar planet detection.

=== Transit method ===
When a planet passes in front of its star, it blocks some of the light of the star. By measuring this periodic momentary dimming of the light, it is possible to identify a planet that is properly aligned. This method does not work if the planet itself does not eclipse the star from our perspective.

=== Direct imaging ===
In the situation where a star is not extremely bright, it is possible to detect a planet orbiting it. Such was the case with the brown dwarf 2M1207 which had a detectable companion that was named 2M1207b.

== Current count ==
As of 2007, the number of extrasolar planets detected stands at more than 200. Since the detection methods devised to date favor large, gaseous planets, most detected planets are quite dissimilar to Earth, and they are not thought to be good candidates for finding life. However, the planet [[Gliese_581c|Gliese 581c]] orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581 (approximately 20 light-years from earth) appears to be a terrestrial (that is, rocky) planet that orbits in the "habitable zone" of space surrounding its star. The term "habitable" in this context simply means that the stellar light flux it receives is similar to that of Earth, and it therefore might have an Earthlike temperature. Whether it is in fact habitable depends on many other factors, and is pure speculation at present.

==See also==
*[[Extraterrestrial life]]
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]
*[[Exotheology]]

[[category:astronomy]]

Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T18:37:10Z

Schifra: /* Current count */

Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T18:36:48Z

Schifra: /* Current count */

'''Extrasolar planets''' or '''exoplanets''' are planets that orbit stars other than the sun.

Planets have no light source of their own, and most extrasolar planets are too far away to be seen by the light they reflect from their own suns, however some have been detected by examining light being blocked from the star that is being orbited.

== Methods of detection ==

=== Astrometry ===
A star and planet orbit about a spot that is the center of gravity of the system known as the [[barycenter]]. For the Sun and Jupiter, the barycenter is 1.068 solar radii. With larger planets orbiting closer to the star, it is possible to detect the movement of the star against the distant background. This method was used to detect a planet orbiting Gliese 876.

=== Radial velocity ===
Instead of mapping the position of the star against the background, it is also possible to detect the minute [[Doppler shift]] in the star's spectrum as it is tugged by the planet. This method is responsible for the majority of extrasolar planet detection.

=== Transit method ===
When a planet passes in front of its star, it blocks some of the light of the star. By measuring this periodic momentary dimming of the light, it is possible to identify a planet that is properly aligned. This method does not work if the planet itself does not eclipse the star from our perspective.

=== Direct imaging ===
In the situation where a star is not extremely bright, it is possible to detect a planet orbiting it. Such was the case with the brown dwarf 2M1207 which had a detectable companion that was named 2M1207b.

== Current count ==
As of 2007, the number of extrasolar planets detected stands at more than 200. Since the detection methods devised to date favor large, gaseous planets, most detected planets are quite dissimilar to Earth, and they are not thought to be good candidates for finding life. However, the planet [[Gliese_581c]] orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581 (approximately 20 light-years from earth) appears to be a terrestrial (that is, rocky) planet that orbits in the "habitable zone" of space surrounding its star. The term "habitable" in this context simply means that the stellar light flux it receives is similar to that of Earth, and it therefore might have an Earthlike temperature. Whether it is in fact habitable depends on many other factors, and is pure speculation at present.

[[category:astronomy]]

Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T18:34:37Z

Schifra: /* Current count */

'''Extrasolar planets''' or '''exoplanets''' are planets that orbit stars other than the sun.

Planets have no light source of their own, and most extrasolar planets are too far away to be seen by the light they reflect from their own suns, however some have been detected by examining light being blocked from the star that is being orbited.

== Methods of detection ==

=== Astrometry ===
A star and planet orbit about a spot that is the center of gravity of the system known as the [[barycenter]]. For the Sun and Jupiter, the barycenter is 1.068 solar radii. With larger planets orbiting closer to the star, it is possible to detect the movement of the star against the distant background. This method was used to detect a planet orbiting Gliese 876.

=== Radial velocity ===
Instead of mapping the position of the star against the background, it is also possible to detect the minute [[Doppler shift]] in the star's spectrum as it is tugged by the planet. This method is responsible for the majority of extrasolar planet detection.

=== Transit method ===
When a planet passes in front of its star, it blocks some of the light of the star. By measuring this periodic momentary dimming of the light, it is possible to identify a planet that is properly aligned. This method does not work if the planet itself does not eclipse the star from our perspective.

=== Direct imaging ===
In the situation where a star is not extremely bright, it is possible to detect a planet orbiting it. Such was the case with the brown dwarf 2M1207 which had a detectable companion that was named 2M1207b.

== Current count ==
As of 2007, the number of extrasolar planets detected stands at more than 200. Since the detection methods devised to date favor large, gaseous planets, most detected planets are quite dissimilar to Earth, and they are not thought to be good candidates for finding life. However, a planet orbiting the red dwarf star [[Gliese_581c|Gliese 581]] (approximately 20 light-years from earth) appears to be a terrestrial (that is, rocky) planet that orbits in the "habitable zone" of space surrounding its star. The term "habitable" in this context simply means that the stellar light flux it receives is similar to that of Earth, and it therefore might have an Earthlike temperature. Whether it is in fact habitable depends on many other factors, and is pure speculation at present.

[[category:astronomy]]

Talk:Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T18:32:45Z

Schifra: Double pages

There is also the page exoplanet, cescribing the same. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 14:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Roe effect

2007-05-24T18:03:23Z

Schifra: /* antiabortion -> pro-life */

The '''Roe effect''' is the name for how the court case ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', which legalized [[abortion]] nationwide in the [[United States]], affected the political leanings of Americans by diminishing the number of [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] voters. Simply put, since those who favor legal abortion are much more likely to get one than those who oppose it, and since children often follow their parents' political leanings, support for legal abortions will decline over time, simply because pro-choice parents will have fewer children than they might otherwise have had. Since people frequently associate their views with political parties, those parties that oppose abortion, such as conservative parties, including the [[Republican Party|Republican Party]], could gain power over time. James Taranto of the ''Wall Street Journal'' named this fact and has discussed it extensively in his Opinionjournal.com column "Best of the Web Today." He cites statistics to support his case, such as evidence that current college-age students (born after abortion's legalization) oppose abortion more now than students in earlier years.

==The effect==

By establishing a constitutional right to abortion, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court caused the issue of abortion to take a prominent place in national political campaigns. By 1980, both major political parties had adopted extreme positions--Republicans favoring a "pro-life" constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and Democrats opposing virtually all regulation on "pro-choice" grounds. Every presidential and vice-presidential nominee since then has toed the party line on abortion.

Since the parties split on abortion, the GOP has won five of seven presidential elections, and no Democrat has had a majority of the popular vote. Republicans took over the Senate in 1980, and both houses of Congress in 1994.

Most Americans are moderate or ambivalent on abortion, rejecting the extreme positions on either side. One reason Republicans have an advantage is that as long as Roe remains in effect--taking off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy - Republicans are an extreme pro-life party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

Every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher percentage of pregnancies aborted than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost - surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.

It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after ''Roe v. Wade'' have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have.

The Roe effect would have made itself felt before post-''Roe'' children even reached voting age. Children, after all, are counted in the population figures that determine states' representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, if the greater prevalence of abortion post-''Roe'' affected statewide fertility patterns, the results would have begun showing up after the 1980 reapportionment--in the 1982 election for Congress, and the 1984 election for president.

The first post-''Roe'' babies reached voting age in 1991, in time for the 1992 election. In 1992 the Roe effect would have been minimal, since it was limited to a small segment of the electorate (18- and 19-year-olds), who tend not to vote. The affected segment of the population grows with each election, ranging up to 23-year-olds in 1996, 27-year-olds in 2000, and 31-year-olds in 2004. The Roe effect is compounded over generations. Children who are never born do not have children or grandchildren.

Critics of the Roe effect hypothesis point out that abortion does not necessarily diminish a woman's lifetime fertility. A woman may, for example, have an abortion while in college, but later marry and bear children--children she might not have had, had she been forced to carry her collegiate pregnancy to term. Yet it is not clear how much this might mitigate the Roe effect. Some women do abort their final pregnancy, and delayed childbearing is one manifestation of the Roe effect. If a woman has a child at, say, age 30 rather than 20, one additional census passes before the child counts toward his state's congressional and electoral college apportionment, and two or three presidential elections pass before he reaches voting age. The compounding element applies here as well; if a woman has a daughter at 30 rather than 20, the daughter reaches childbearing age a decade later than she otherwise would have. Moreover, attitudes about abortion and politics are subject to change with age and experience, and usually in a conservative direction. Thus, some women who delay childbearing contribute to the Roe effect on both ends: by having abortions when they are young, single, and pro-choice, and by bearing children when they are older, married, and pro-life.

The 30 states George W. Bush carried in 2000 had 271 electoral votes, a bare majority. Reapportionment after the 2000 census increased that number to 278. In the 1980s, they were worth only 267 electoral votes, not enough for a majority; in the 1970s, 260. The trend continues: Of the 10 fastest-growing states in 2003-04, Bush carried nine in 2004. One of them, New Mexico, went for Al Gore four years earlier.

But Roe effect doubters can point to 2004 exit-poll results that found 18- to 29-year-old voters--i.e., those born after 1975, who correspond closely with the post-Roe generation--were the only age cohort that supported John Kerry over Mr. Bush, by 54% to 45%. Yet caution is in order in interpreting these results. The Roe effect does not predict that younger voters will be more apt to vote Republican than older ones, only ''than they otherwise would be''. Putting the Roe effect to a real test will require a longitudinal look at these voters. How will their voting pattern change, as they grow older and more settled? In any given year, the youngest age cohort will include a high proportion of lower-income and never-married voters, both traits that are highly correlated with voting Democratic. Marriage, in particular, tends to correspond with conservative attitudes on abortion and other social issues, and therefore with voting Republican. According to 2004 exit polls, Mr. Bush outpolled Mr. Kerry among married voters, 57% to 42%, while Mr. Kerry beat Mr. Bush among singletons, 58% to 40%.

Peculiarities of the 2004 campaign might also have maximized Mr. Kerry's performance among young voters. The Democratic get-out-the-vote effort placed heavy emphasis on the youth vote, employing pop-cultural icons and exploiting the fear of a military draft. The strong youth vote for Kerry may prove to have been less a trend than a spike.

While the Roe effect may give Republicans an advantage, it obviously is insufficient to win elections. National security and the economy still loom larger than abortion in most voters' minds. And although no Democratic candidate since 1976 has won a popular-vote majority, pro-choice candidates collectively (including Ross Perot and Ralph Nader) did so in the three elections from 1992 to 2000. Further, the Roe effect does not necessarily mean that younger voters will end up conservative on cultural issues other than abortion. Opinion polls consistently show, for example, that the young are far more favorable toward same-sex marriage than their elders. This should not be surprising. Even if their parents tend to be conservative, they grew up in a society far more accepting of homosexuality than the one in which earlier generations came of age.

And if Republicans keep winning the presidency and appointing Supreme Court justices, ''Roe v. Wade'' may eventually be overturned. If ''Roe'' goes by the boards, one would expect fertility to increase in states that outlawed abortion, which would presumably be largely conservative and Republican ones. If the Roe effect continues to operate, though, it would make those states more Democratic and liberal, since women who otherwise might get abortions would no longer have the option in their home states. But in the end, that may not matter. If ''Roe'' were overturned, the politics of abortion would change dramatically, and in the Democrats' favor. With the legality of abortion itself on the line, the debate would shift away from the pro-choice extremes, forcing pro-choice politicians to take a more centrist (and popular) position. Republicans would be torn between their antiabortion base and more moderate voters, for whom an outright ban on abortion is a bridge too far.

The best solution for both parties would likely be a return to the status quo ante ''Roe''--that is, for Congress and the president largely to ignore abortion, and leave its regulation to the state legislatures. This would allow politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, to tailor their views to match those of their constituents and their own consciences, and it would remove abortion as a polarizing issue from national elections. Thus, one might say that both ''Roe'' and the Roe effect contain the seeds of their own demise.

User talk:Schifra

2007-05-24T17:51:45Z

Schifra: /* reply */

{{welcome|--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)}}

Wir versuchen eine alternativen Realität aufzubauen. Ihrer Bezug zur der bereits existierende Realität könnte dieses Projekt stören. Bitte merken Sie folgende 'Regel'([[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]):
:''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
Merke: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', d.h. wenn einen sysop sich für seiner Version der Realität entschienden hat dann ist es auch so. Das Bestreiten dieser Realität könnte in der Verbannung enden. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Das schreckt nicht wirklich ab, es zu versuchen. Sollte es sich tatsächlich so herausstellen, erspart es mir viel Zeit :-) --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 05:36, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hallöchen ==

Grüße von Deutschland nach Deutschland ;-) --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 17:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Ditto --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 17:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hallo an Alle ==

Ich habe neulich diese Unterhaltung gefunden [[Talk:Main_Page#Those_Nazi_Germans_have_the_constitutional_right_to_teach_religion_in_public_schools|Home schooling]]. Ich fand die Mentalität der Amis sehr Merkwürdig. Ich bin der Ansicht daß die Amis keine Ahnung haben, was Freiheit bedeutet. Immer diese blöde Nazi Kommentar. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 23:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Vielen Dank. Glücklicherweise kenne ich auch viele Amerikaner, die sich ohne Vorurteil für Deutschland interessieren. Ich denke, dass er einfach nicht zugeben kann, dass er sich in einer Sackgasse verrannt hatte. So etwas kommt vor. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 02:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Iraq==

Good catch. I meant US but typed UN by mistake. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq&curid=6667&diff=175615&oldid=175607&rcid=184178] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 13:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Iraq

2007-05-24T17:31:29Z

Schifra: /* Occupation of Iraq */

[[Image:Iraqiflag.gif|thumbnail|right|250px|The Iraqi Flag.]]

The modern country of '''Iraq''' corresponds with the ancient region of Mesopotamia - known by many as the cradle of civilization - where the first cities and classical civilizations developed in the fertile region between the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

The first of these was the Sumerian civilization that arose in southern Mesopotamia around 4,500 BC. The Sumerians grew barley, chickpeas, lentils, millet, wheat, turnips, dates, onions, garlic, lettuce, leeks and mustard and raised cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. The fertility of the flood plains they farmed and their extensive use of irrigation created surplus food which supported the populations of their cities and a system of government - which stored and distributed food and created the first system of laws. In order to administer this the Sumerians developed the earliest known form of writing - cuneiform - much of which survives as they wrote on clay tablets which were dried in the sun and many of which have survived. The Sumerians worshiped many gods. They also built large mud brick pyramids known as ziggurats as funerary monuments to commemorate the dead.

In 2371 BC King Sargon of Akkad established the Assyrian dynasty which conquered the region covered by the modern countries of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Israel. The Assyrian Empire collapsed with the fall of it's capital Nineveh (the modern Iraqi town of Mosul)in 612 BC and it was replaced by the Babylonian Empire - Babylon was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world and home to the legendary [[Hanging Gardens of Babylon]] built by King Nebuchadnezzar the second. Mesopotamian dominance of the region ended when the Persian king Cyrus the Great invaded in 539 BC. It remained part of the Persian Empire until Alexander the Great's conquest in 331 BC. It was ruled by the Hellenic descendants of Alexander's army - the Seleucids - until the Persians regained control, in around 150 BC, and made Mesopotamia part of the Parthian Empire - the only civilization to halt Roman expansionism.

In the 7th Century AD Mesopotamia was incorporated into the vast Muslim Arab empire that covered most of the middle east, north Africa and Spain. In the 8th century the capital of this empire was moved to Baghdad which at a time when Europe was in the dark ages became the greatest center for science and art since the time of the ancient Greeks. It was here that Astronomy and Algebra (both Arab words) were studied and advanced, and many familiar stories were first told, like those of Sinbad the Sailor, Ali Baba and the forty thieves, and the thousand and one Arabian nights. By the twelfth century this great empire was in serious decline due to the Crusades, breakaway Muslim states in north Africa, the Mongols in the east and from its own rebellious mercenary soldiers - the Mamalukes and the Turks. Following the assassination of the last Caliph of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 there were nearly four centuries of conquest and chaos as Mesopotamia was invaded by Seleucids, Turks, Ottomans, Mongols (under Ghengis Khan), Turkoman, Tartars and Kurds.

In the 16th Century Mesopotamia, literally "middle of two rivers" in [[Greek]], became part of the [[Ottoman Empire]].

In the early 20th Century Arab nationalists including Iraqis began rebelling against their Turkish rulers. With the outbreak of the First World War they fought alongside the Allies against the Turks in the hope of gaining their independence. France and Britain would control the Arab lands and Iraq came under the British mandate. When Iraqi tribesmen rebelled against British rule, the rebellion was put down using aerial bombardment - the first time air power had been used in such a way. In 1932 Iraq was granted independence although Britain still exercised considerable control over the country and had retained Kuwait for its oil.

In the years following the second world war Iraq was allied to Britain, the United States and Turkey, and Britain continued to exert considerable influence over the country. In 1958 an "anti-imperialists" military coup overthrew and executed the British-installed royal family. The coup leader Abd al-Quassim banned all political parties and declared that Kuwait was part of Iraq. The Arab League then asked Britain to send troops to Kuwait to prevent an Iraqi invasion of a one of it's member states. The troop deployment prevented a war but al-Quassim responded by allying Iraq with the Soviet Union and communist China. Quassim used money taken from the western owned Iraq Petroleum Company to carry out economic reforms in Iraq. Western governments were becoming concerned Iraq could become the "new Cuba" and in 1963 they supported a pro-western coup that overthrew Quassim. Between 1963 and 1968 there was a period of political instability with several failed governments and attempted coups.

In 1968 the Ba-ath Party seized power in a coup lead by General Bakr. The Ba-ath Party believes in the creation of a single, socialist pan-Arab state that would replace all existing Arab countries. During the cold war it was strongly aligned with the [[Soviet Union]]. In 1970 all foreign businesses including the Iraq Petroleum Company were seized and Iraq declared oil would be used as "a political weapon in the struggle against imperialism and Zionism". In 1979 Saddam Hussein replaced Bakr as president of Iraq. Saddam was a particularly brutal ruthless man, he attempted to assassinate Qassim in 1959, played a major role in 1968 coup and under Bakr he had led the much feared Ba'athist secret police. One of his first acts as President was to call a Ba'ath Party assembly where he declared his main political rivals to be traitors and spies; they were led from the assembly one by one to be tried and executed.

==Absolute rule of Saddam==

Saddam's next major initiative as President of Iraq was to invade [[Iran]] in September 1980, coinciding with the [[Iranian hostage crisis]]. At first, he experienced a high degree of success, overrunning most of [[Khorramsharr]] province, Iran's only [[Arab]]-majority province. His stated war aim was to seize exclusive control of the [[Shatt al-Arab]] waterway
for Iraq.

The war ultimately ground on for eight years, killing over a million people total on both sides. During this time Iraq was taken off the [[United States list of state sponsors of terrorism]], relations with the West were normalized, and various Western countries including the [[United States]] entered into various lucrative deals with Iraq. In the case of the United States this principally consisted of agricultural credits, but other countries liberally supplied Iraq with whatever Saddam believed it needed. The war machine's principal need was cash, and even Iraq's significant oil revenues did not bring in enough, so Saddam borrowed scores of billions of dollars from other Arab countries.

Iran sued for peace following the failure of a [[Kurdish]] rebellion in northern Iraq in the winter of 1988 which Saddam ruthlessly suppressed in the [[Anfal campaign]], turning the chemical weapons he had long used against Iran on his own citizens. Throughout the period of absolute rule a few hundred people every year were executed, frequently by [[torture]], but this was the crescendo of repression as Saddam seemed to be endeavoring to wipe out the Kurds of Iraq. The memory of this repression gave rise to a phrase frequently repeated in the United States following the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when that country was overrun in 2003: "Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction."

Iraq enjoyed technical peace (justice being utterly absent) for only two years, after which Saddam invaded [[Kuwait]], the smallest of Iraq's six neighbors, which was unable to offer significant resistance. There were a mixed bag of motivations, but probably the primary one was the debt Saddam had incurred from other Arab nations of the [[Persian Gulf]] during the war. The debt was so overwhelming that it made the invasion almost rational; Saddam hoped to be able to frighten his local creditors into writing off his debts and pay down his debts to more distant creditors with Kuwait's oil revenues, which have always been somewhat higher than those of Iraq, although it is a much smaller country. Accordingly, Saddam announced that Kuwait would become permanently a province of Iraq.

The United States and particularly [[Great Britain]], whose policy it had always been to protect Kuwait from Iraq, took an exceedingly dim view of these events. British [[Prime Minister]] [[Margaret Thatcher]] persuaded U. S. [[President]] [[George H. W. Bush]] that Saddam's action, despite his previously close relationship with the West, was a violation of the [[Carter Doctrine]], which stated more or less that the U. S. would not allow ownership of Persian Gulf oil fields to be changed by force. The two countries obtained several resolutions from the [[United Nations Security Council]] to the effect that Iraq would have to withdraw and began with their allies, both [[European]], Arab, and across the broader world, a military buildup in preparation to liberate Kuwait. A worldwide economic [[blockade]] was imposed on Iraq in the hopes that this would persuade it to withdraw without bloodshed. The only goods Iraq could legally buy were food and medicine.

The sanctions failing to bring about the desired end, the U. S.-led coalition was obliged to begin [[Operation Desert Storm]] on January 17 local time. After almost six weeks of continuous bombing, most Iraqi troops in the Kuwait theatre of operations had deserted. The only offensive they launched managed to take the [[Saudi Arabian]] town of Khafji, but Saddam's attempt to send reinforcements resulted in the destruction of several Iraqi divisions, demonstrating that [[air supremacy]] forced a conventional army to remain essentially immobile and unable to concentrate forces to repel attacks. On February 25, a ground offensive was launched resulting in the destruction of numerous additional divisions and the flight of others back to [[Basra]], the second-largest and southernmost city in Iraq.

The coalition in the Gulf War did not have the authorization to force a regime change in Baghdad in 1992, neither was it ever a stated objective of the coalition.

Not only the [[Republican Guard]], considered Saddam's most loyal and elite troops, but also the regular army's officer corps, however, was made up principally of [[Sunnis]], who perceived the ensuing simultaneous rebellions by Kurds in the north and [[Shiites]] in the south of Iraq as an existential threat rather than as something which, in a more ethnically homogeneous country, they could have joined. The army therefore remained loyal to Saddam and crushed the Shiite rebellion. The U. S., Britain and France intervened in the north through [[Operation Provide Comfort]], which ended Iraqi control of the three Kurdish majority provinces until 1996, when Saddam was able to exploit a split between the two largest Kurdish [[militias]]. They also established no-fly zones in both the north and the south, not only reserving the right but considering it a duty to shoot down any fixed-wing Iraqi aircraft which might fly over those parts of Iraq.

In the following years the use of force against Iraq was only sporadic and limited mostly to [[cruise missile]] attacks until [[Operation Desert Fox]] in December 1998, undertaken in retaliation for the ejection of the [[United Nations Special Commission]] sent to dismantle any Iraqi [[weapons of mass destruction]]. At the time, UNSCOM, as it was known, was credited with destroying more knwon stockpiles than had been destroyed during the war. Saddam's son-in-law [[Hussein Ali Kamel]] defected to [[Jordan]] in 1995 and claimed that Iraq still possessed substantial stocks of [[nerve gas]] and possibly [[biological weapons]]. The following year, without explanation, Kamel returned to Iraq, where he was killed.

It cannot be said for certain what Saddam possessed in 1995, but the stocks Kamel claimed existed were not found either by UNSCOM or by U. S. forces following the 2003 invasion. Little is known of onging programs to disseminate WMD manufactuing knowhow, or to whom the knowledge may have been disseminated to. The Iraqis behaved as though they had something to hide, resisting unannounced weapons inspections with all means short of armed force, denying UNSCOM the right to inspect Saddam's various Presidential palaces (mostly built after the war while the sanctions were impoverishing his people), and finally throwing UNSCOM out. If Hussein Kamel were a [[plant]] all along, it would be consistent with Saddam's policy of creating the belief in his opponents that he did possess WMD, as a means of deterring them from attacking. The Duelfer Report, based upon interrogations of high Ba'athist officials, states Saddam believed WMD had saved the regime in the Iran-Iraq War, and the threat of WMD saved him again during the Gulf War. However Saddam's chief aim was to get UN sanctions lifted, after which the WMD program would be restarted in full capacity, and generated by the new revenues and trade lifting the sanctions would bring.

By 1996, the unrelieved economic blockade of Iraq was severely affecting its ability to purchase food and medicine on the world market, as it like most Arab countries had little besides oil to export. Various claims were made to the effect that Iraq's infant mortality was now the highest in the Arab world or even that hundreds of thousands of people had starved to death. For the purpose of purchasing food and medicine, the United Nations agreed to permit Iraq to resume oil exports in what became known as the oil-for-food (OFF) program (see below). The Iraq economy finally recovered from the Gulf War with the OFF. This is now generally considered a major error by [[conservatives]] which will not be repeated should the current sanctions against [[Iran]] be toughened to what they were against Iraq.

Operation Desert Fox was preceded by the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998, which passed [[Congress]] with a veto-proof margin just as the [[impeachment]] inquiry against President [[Bill Clinton]] was shifting into high gear. The act could be considered a repudiation of Clinton's policy or lack of a policy toward Iraq up to that point. This made it U. S. policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which could be considered a [[declaration of war]]. However, not until March 2003 did Clinton's successor [[George W. Bush]] actually order Saddam and his brutal sons [[Uday and Qusay Hussein]] to step down and flee Iraq on pain of invasion. When Saddam refused, [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] commenced on March 19, 2003; U. S. troops reached Baghdad three weeks later.

==Oil for food scandal==

In 2003 Ba'athist party dictator Saddam Hussein, accused of hiding weapons of mass destruction, was removed from power by a US-led coalition of forces. Saddam had effectively stopped previous attempts at enforcement of UN resolutions by essentially bribing <ref>[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0125almadalist.htm The Saddam Oil Bribes: The Complete al-Mada List], ''al-Mada'', January 25, 2004.</ref> several Seucrity Council members, namely the Russian Federation and France <ref>Duelfer Report, [http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_da.pdf Regime Finance and Procurement], Vol. 1, p. 55-56. </ref> through the corrupt [[Oil for food]] (OFF) program managed by UN General Secretary [[Kofi Annan]]'s son. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/index.html Annan 'disappointed' son didn't tell all], CNN, November 30, 2004.</ref>

The Duelfer Report found,
:Iraq pursued its related goals of ending UN sanctions and the UN OFF program by enlisting the help of three permanent UNSC members: Russia, France and China. ... Iraq’s economic “carrots” included offering companies from those countries lucrative oil, reconstruction, agricultural and commercial goods, and weapon systems contracts. ...Saddam’s Regime needed both Moscow’s political clout in the UN and its economic expertise and resources to sustain his Regime from the 1990s until [Operation Iraqi Freedom] (OIF) ... Iraq promised to economically reward Russia’s support by placing it at the head of the list for receiving UN contracts under the UN OFF program....throughout the 1990s, the [Peoples Republic of China] consistently advocated lifting Iraqi sanctions while privately advising Baghdad to strengthen cooperation with the UN.

:In early July 2001, the US and the UK withdrew their joint-proposal to revamp the UN existing sanctions Regime, called “Smart Sanctions,” because of Russian, Chinese, and French opposition. The US/UK proposal attempted to restructure two key elements of the existing sanctions Regime: illicit procurement of weapons and dual-use goods and illicit generation of revenue from Iraqi oil sales outside the UN’s OFF program. In contrast, the Russian draft resolution proposed to reduce the current percentage to the Compensation fund another 5 percent to 20 percent of total value of Iraqi oil exports – and increase the total amount in Iraq’s escrow account to $600 million to pay other expenses ... The UN estimated that each 5 percent reduction in payments to the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) added about $275 million in Iraq’s coffers per each UN OFF six month phase.

:French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts; Russian companies not only wanted to secure (or lock in) oil contracts, but also sought other commercial contracts covering agricultural, electricity, machinery, food, and automobiles and trucks products...France competed with Russian agricultural products for Iraqi contracts....In May 2002, a representative from a French water purification company requested projects for his company in Iraq.

After two years in interrogation, Saddam was hanged by the new Iraqi regime. Iraq is currently plagued by insurgents who are against the new Iraqi government's alliance with the United States, and have reacted violently to Iraq's new government. Their efforts have destabilized the country enough that some consider Iraq to be headed towards civil war.

==Occupation of Iraq==

After the US decided that Iraq was in defiance of Security Council directives on weapons of mass discussion, President Bush decided to invade and occupy the nation. A US/UK coalition invaded (mostly from the southeast), and a brief shooting war ensued. Iraqi forces gave up fighting (without surrendering) shortly after US forces entered Baghdad (see [[Iraq War]]).

Democrats in Congress want to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070523-115137-6054r.htm]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Talk:Witchcraft

2007-05-24T17:25:11Z

Schifra: /* Witchcraft and the truth */

== Inquisition? ==
This article looks like it has been copied from a 15th century inquisition guidebook.

Can someone who's knowledgeable on this subject insert something on which burnings, and witchcraft in other cultures/religion, besides Medieval Christian Europe?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I have attempted to make factual changes, however I have been accused by another contributor as adding personal bias. If you have any ideas, i'm happy to listen to them!
--[[User:Mistress|Mistress]] 21:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Witchcraft and the truth ==

I have been watching this discussion for some time now. And I must say I am really amazed at what I have seen going on. I have watched as others repeatedly tried to explain that a witch is not evil and seen them be blocked from posting again. I have also read where this site is supposed to be based on the truth. Well if that is so why are the posts from ones that are telling the truth being banned? What do you not want the truth told? A witch is NOT evil. A witch does not worship the devil. Satanists worship the devil. A witch does not even believe in the devil. A witch might believe in Baal, an underworld god or a witch might believe in Gaia, the earth or a witch might believe in Hecate. the goddes of childbirth, but you will never hear a witch say she believes in the devil. I am also amazed at the christian undertones that are raging through this discussion. Is this a decision on what witchcraft truly is? Or is it a discussion based on Christian belief? I remember reading in the bible in Matthew 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged. It would seem to me a lot of judging and casting of the first stone is being done in this discussion. I am also sure my ip address will be blocked by the time this posts. That is a shame because this could have been a good discussion with a chance at real knowledge being shared. {{unsigned|Ladyinred58}}

:You claim that witches are not evil, and you claim that to be the truth, but all we appear to have is your word for that. On the other hand, we also have claims (in the Bible) that witchcraft ''is'' "evil" (i.e. wrong). So why should we believe you over the Bible? You are taking Matthew 7:1 out of context, by the way, as bibliosceptics typically do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually I am far from a sceptic on the bible. As for taking Matt 7:1 out of context, I truly believe that in this context it is correct. How can any of us judge a witch to be evil unless we are truly free of evil ourselves. Doesn't Matt 7:2-5 say "2.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4.Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5.Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Doesn't this mean that we should free ourselves from evilness before we state another is evil?" [[User:ladyinred58|ladyinred58]] 11:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::First, my apologies for putting my message in a way that could be misunderstood. I normally avoid saying that a ''person'' is evil, as distinct from their ''actions''. Not that I said that witches were evil, but that could be inferred from my comments.
::Having said that, though, I didn't actually say that we should judge a witch to be evil. I said that the Bible says that witch''craft'' is evil. If we can't "judge" something to be evil on the basis of what the Bible declares to be evil, then as long as we are still sinners (which we are until we die), we can't "judge" anything at all, yet as the following verses that you quoted indicate, we ''can'' judge, as long as we don't do so hypocritically. We would be hypocritical to judge witchcraft as evil if we were practising witchcraft, but not if we are "merely" sinners/evil in a different way.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

You say that "You claim that witches are not evil, and you claim that to be the truth, but all we appear to have is your word for that" - if you or anyone else wants proof, talk to a few witches. Find out what they're all about and what witchcraft actually is, or even look it up on the internet - better yet, visit [http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=basics&id=2870 | Witchvox's FAQ page]and read up on what you're discussing here. You seem like a reasonable guy, and I think you might learn a few new things if you open your mind and ask some questions. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 06:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT) (I'm sorry about my awful linking)

:Sorry if this seems harsh, but how do we know that we can trust the witches to tell the truth? The point is, I come from a perspective that God has told us that witchcraft is wrong, so if it's a case of choosing between what God has said and what witches say, then I'll choose the omniscient, infallible God any day.
:Of course that view is based on the view that God really is omniscient and infallible, but given that presumption, then I hope that you can see that the rest naturally follows.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perfectly understandable viewpoint Phillip. The article still reads like a weird rant with no references to scripture and no history or anything though. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 07:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not for one moment suggesting that the current article is satisfactory or that it couldn't do with improvement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Doesn't the [[wicca]] article look much better or shouldn't this article simply redirect to the [[wicca]] article. I am definitely no expert on this. Maybe, someone more knowledgable should sort out the differences --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 13:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

That's a real catch-22 - witches are not liars because they're witches, but you won't believe that because a witch tells you. It amazes me you believe something like that, and I really hope you learn better one day. Finally, the Bible is a book written by men - as in it wasn't faxed down as it is today from Heaven by God himself (I say 'faxed' for lack of a better word). I really don't want to discuss the can of worms that opens because I'm not here trying to discredit your whole religion, just to try and bring some fact to this 'article' everyone's locked out of. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 08:23, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The point that I was trying to make is that what one believes about this issue (as with many issues) depends on other beliefs, such as those that comprise one's worldview. My comments above, as Fingermouse apparently understands, is entirely consistent with my worldview, but inconsistent with your worldview. The solution is to find some common ground and build on that. But your view that the Bible is a book written by men (as though that's all it is, and it is therefore fallible), is not that common ground, because that is part of your worldview and not part of mine.
:I can understand that you don't want to open that "can of worms", but unless you do, we will remain with different views of witchcraft, because each of our views are inexorably based on our respective worldviews. If you want to discuss the validity of witchcraft, then you ''must'' start from the point of divergence, which is different worldviews. Anything else is futile. Of course, it is your decision whether or not you choose to discuss it at all.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Witchcraft" article content ==

The content of this article is a disgrace to this "encyclopedia" - there is no truth to be found about witchcraft in this piece of writing, save that the word 'witchcraft' is spelled correctly. In undoing the alleged "biased vandalism", you have erased actual correct information. Perhaps one day you'll find out the truth - I hope it's sooner rather than later, so you can stop misinforming the world. Open your mind and consider the possibility you may be wrong.
--[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 22:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest dividing it up: a section for info about christian views of witchcraft, and after that, a more encycloepdic entry about the history of witchcraft, including the inquisition, the burnings, the Salem stuff etc. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent idea - everyone that visits can then differentiate between subjective, religion-influenced views and fact. Very good thought. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 07:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

A properly structured article would be infinitely preferable to the current weird rant. Where is the history? What does the Bible actually say? Where are the references to scripture? How has witchcraft been viewed through the ages? Properly researched and written, this has the potential to be a great historical article. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 07:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, just be sure to put the Bible-oriented point of view in *first*- considering this IS Conservapedia after all- but both part´s lenght should be about the same, as to not discriminate between either point of view. A subtle (or not-so subtle) conservative bias is OK, as long as there IS another point of view present, too. Thus, the reader is given several points of view, and they can thus construct their own. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:LunarStorm, what makes you think that the "religion-influenced view" is subjective? Surely if the omniscient God has told us that something is the case, you can't get much more objective than that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Religion is something believed by someone - a personal opinion on the universe, you could say. Because of this, written pieces like this 'article', that are influenced by religion, are subjective. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 08:27, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:As I've just posted above, if you want to debate something like this, you need to start from common ground and build from there. That Christianity (which is the "religion" in question here) is merely a personal opinion is ''not'' that common ground, because you and I both have different views on that. For me, Christianity is simply acknowledgement that God is real and as described in the Bible. That is, we are not talking about subjective beliefs, but about truth-claims. Is God real or not? Did He actually declare witchcraft to be wrong, or not? If the answers to those questions are Yes He is and Yes He did, then it naturally follows that witchcraft ''is'' wrong. But so many bibliosceptics fail to address those questions, instead ''avoiding'' those questions by claiming, as though it is accepted or self-evident (neither of which is the case), that Christianity is merely a subjective belief. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Just noticed, it´s kind of useless to plan adding in a history section or similar, when the article has been protected. A great discussion indeed, when only one side of the discussion actually has the right to edit the article. Thus, You Win, I Lose, and will now keep my mouth shut for the time being. Useless arguing hurts my head, I rather contribute something. ->
[[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

A healthy debate may well lead to a good, encyclopedic article, it's what the Talk pages are here for. It may well take longer but will prevent edit conflicts and will give everyone a chance to have their say. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 09:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Something I Noticed==

"You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. Please add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non problematic, or make this article more grammatically correct. Please remember to abide by The Conservapedia Commandments in your actions, though."

It's impossible to add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non'''-'''problematic or correct grammar when the article is protected.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:You have two options: Ask the locking sysop to unlock the article, or propose changes on this page so that a sysop can add the changes for you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Harry Potter

2007-05-24T17:20:03Z

Schifra: wicca link added

[[Image:67486ruy.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of '''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'''.]]
'''Harry Potter''' is the hero of a series of novels by [[J. K. Rowling]], about an orphan boy who finds that his parents were [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]]s. Harry then goes to Hogwarts, a boarding school for young wizards, and has many adventures there learning magic and using it to fight the forces of the [[Voldemort|wizard]] who killed his parents when he was an infant. Along the way, Harry learns about life and death and grapples with questions of morality and friendship. As of 2007, the series is projected to consist of seven novels, of which six have been published, with the seventh to be released in July of 2007.

The books have been fabulously successful, selling 300 million copies, and Forbes estimates that they have made Rowling the first billion-dollar author in history.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html J. K. Rowling And The Billion-Dollar Empire].</ref> To date, four of them have been made into movies.

The Harry Potter series of books are sizeable volumes. The 870 pages of ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,'' even though printed in large type, contain 255,000 words—about twice as long as ''A Tale of Two Cities.'' The "Lexile" measure of reading level puts the series between 880L and 950L,<ref>For comparison: Charlotte's Web 680L, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland 890L, Moby Dick 1200L</ref> comparable to sixth-grade texts<ref>[http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=fa&tabindex=4&tabid=22 The Lexile framework for reading].</ref> On July 20, 2005 [[Tony Blair]], the [[Prime Minister]] of England, joined the [[House of Commons]] in lauding J.K. Rowling for her contribution to the education of British young minds.

==Criticisms==

The English "public" schools Hogwarts resembles are ostensibly Anglican institutions; but at Hogwarts, chapel is conspicuously absent. A failure to mention [[Christianity]], other than a celebration of [[Christmas]], combined with the presence of wizardry, have led some to wonder whether Rowling is substituting [[paganism]] for Christianity. The books have also been accused of promoting witchcraft or [[wicca]].<ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/potter.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1735623.stm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm]</ref> A Georgia mother petitioned her school board to ban the books due to their witchcraft and blood sacrifices. The local board of education denied the request, as they felt the banning of Harry Potter would necessitate the banning of all books with reference to witches, including plays like [[Macbeth]] and even stories like [[Cinderella]].<ref>[http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=14074&change_well_id=2]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/ Georgia mom seeks ban on Harry Potter]</ref>

In 2002, a Presbyterian publishing house published ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' in which "glimmers of the Gospel" are illustrated by reference to the Potter books. The author acknowledges she was "replicating the techniques used by anti-Potter critics to look for exactly the opposite of what they were looking for." She notes that Rowling, although "reserved" in announcing her religious beliefs, "openly declares her faith in God and attends the Church of Scotland."<ref>Neal, Connie (2002), ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' Westminster John Knox Press (an imprint of Presbyterian Publishing, Inc.), ISBN 0-664-22601-9; "replicating the techniques of anti-Potter critics," p. xiv; Rowling's beliefs, p. xii.</ref>

In 2003, a [[Vatican]] representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world." <ref>Sink, Mindy (2003), "The Split Verdict on Harry Potter,"
''The New York Times,'' March 8, 2003, p. B6; representative quoted is Rev. Don Peter Fleetwood, who "helped draft a Vatican document on New Age phenomena."</ref>

Some expect children's' literature to present characters that are idealized role models, and to teach simple, explicit life lessons. However, the world of Harry Potter is one in which adult authority figures are complex, imperfect, and occasionally ludicrous (as they are in ''Alice in Wonderland.''). Some teachers in the series are boring, or outright incompetent, while others are supportive and protective (like [[Dumbledore]] and [[Lupin]]).

Harry is what can be called a "good" person, following the tradition of a [[tragic hero]] from [[Greek Tragedy]]. As a whole, students at Hogwarts study hard, but are not above cheating, goofing off, or skipping class.

==Series titles==
*Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (original title as published in England and all other English speaking countries other than U.S.A: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone)
*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
*Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (announced)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Fantasy]]

User talk:Order

2007-05-24T17:10:47Z

Schifra: /* Thanks */

Just a note on your recent revert at [[Christianity]]; the vandal was [[User:Shortdog57]], not [[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I know. My edit message 'reverted vandalism by shortdog; reverted to version by Hojimachong' was mangeled. If you click on Hojimachong in the history of [[Christianity|Christianity]] you will get to shortdog. Not sure why this happend.

Point taken on European liberal parties. Have contributed minor point to discussion on liberal and applied a minor edit to the article.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for reverting the Christianity page. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Warning: you posted a derogatory comment to my talk page ''after'' I warned someone else not to post further discussion about on that topic (Wikipedia's bias) there. Each content page has a talk page for postings comments. Another example of an inappropriate posting will result in the blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

<s>You must be a communist.</s> I PROVED to you that global warming is a myth by giving you a link! Why are you questioning it?! - [[User:Sauli|Sauli]] 10:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This comment just shows that you have no clue what communism means. You proved that you were able to google. --[[User:Order|Order]]

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sniggers* --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Without the communist remark, my answer is: iirc, all you did is quote an article about a danish scientist, saying that global warming is overhyped, and that the way its there exist no reasonable definition of average global temperature. I actually think similar about it. Now your 'argument': First, he doesn't say that its not true, just that it is bad science (I wouldn't actually go that far). But the actual problem with your argument is, that a single researcher opposing it doesn't make it a myth. Just as little as a single researcher makes it a fact. [[User:Order]] 7 april, 00:50 (AEST)
Just so you know: I believe that your sig is broken. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler ==

To avoid even more discussion, could you add the citations to your excellent additions to the Putsch? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 05:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the attributions, good sir. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 07:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==

I didn't put anything back, in that thread. Look closely. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you didn't, Rob did. Sorry, if I did attribute it to the wrong person. [[User:Order]] 26 March.

== German Homeschooling ==

I'll score that little debate as a big win to the Germans - well done! Makes up for the World Cup ;-) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, we will see. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

**Well, we already have. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your support with very well put arguments. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

TK, why did you revert the last comment by ResistanceFighter on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. User:Order May 21 11:40 (AEST)

Order, I have an old saying: "Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!" The last comment there, FYI, on Fighter's talk page was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting there, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Order

2007-05-24T17:10:05Z

Schifra: moved to talk page.

Debate:Does History Matter?

2007-05-24T11:46:44Z

Schifra: /* History *does* matter. */

[[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

==Henry Ford: "history is bunk"==
If ''"...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today"'', than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"==
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"==
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Other Perspectives==
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nobody cares about history==
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Everything matters ==
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
We can learn from it.

Only from America could this question arise.
- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved.
I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

==History *does* matter.==
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.

Debate:Does History Matter?

2007-05-24T11:40:03Z

Schifra: /* Afghanistan */

User:Order

2007-05-24T11:24:05Z

Schifra: Thanks

Thanks for your support with very well put arguments. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Extrasolar planets

2007-05-24T06:48:22Z

Schifra:

'''Extrasolar planets''' or '''exoplanets''' are planets that orbit stars other than the sun.

Planets have no light source of their own, and most extrasolar planets are too far away to be seen by the light they reflect from their own suns, however some have been detected by examining light being blocked from the star that is being orbited.

== Methods of detection ==

=== Astrometry ===
A star and planet orbit about a spot that is the center of gravity of the system known as the [[barycenter]]. For the Sun and Jupiter, the barycenter is 1.068 solar radii. With larger planets orbiting closer to the star, it is possible to detect the movement of the star against the distant background. This method was used to detect a planet orbiting Gliese 876.

=== Radial velocity ===
Instead of mapping the position of the star against the background, it is also possible to detect the minute [[Doppler shift]] in the star's spectrum as it is tugged by the planet. This method is responsible for the majority of extrasolar planet detection.

=== Transit method ===
When a planet passes in front of its star, it blocks some of the light of the star. By measuring this periodic momentary dimming of the light, it is possible to identify a planet that is properly aligned. This method does not work if the planet itself does not eclipse the star from our perspective.

=== Direct imaging ===
In the situation where a star is not extremely bright, it is possible to detect a planet orbiting it. Such was the case with the brown dwarf 2M1207 which had a detectable companion that was named 2M1207b.

== Current count ==
As of 2007, the number of extrasolar planets detected stands at more than 200. Since the detection methods devised to date favor large, gaseous planets, most detected planets are quite dissimilar to Earth, and they are not thought to be good candidates for finding life. However, a planet orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581 (approximately 20 light-years from earth) appears to be a terrestrial (that is, rocky) planet that orbits in the "habitable zone" of space surrounding its star. The term "habitable" in this context simply means that the stellar light flux it receives is similar to that of Earth, and it therefore might have an Earthlike temperature. Whether it is in fact habitable depends on many other factors and has not been shown, yet. Considering the sheer number of stars, the existance of habitable planets is very likely and further research is worthwhile.

[[category:astronomy]]

User talk:Schifra

2007-05-24T06:22:52Z

Schifra: /* Reply */

Wir versuchen eine alternativen Realität aufzubauen. Ihrer Bezug zur der bereits existierende Realität könnte dieses Projekt stören. Bitte merken Sie folgende 'Regel'([[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]):
:''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
Merke: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', d.h. wenn einen sysop sich für seiner Version der Realität entschienden hat dann ist es auch so. Das Bestreiten dieser Realität könnte in der Verbannung enden. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Das schreckt nicht wirklich ab, es zu versuchen. Sollte es sich tatsächlich so herausstellen, erspart es mir viel Zeit :-) --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 05:36, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hallöchen ==

Grüße von Deutschland nach Deutschland ;-) --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 17:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Ditto --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 17:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hallo an Alle ==

Ich habe neulich diese Unterhaltung gefunden [[Talk:Main_Page#Those_Nazi_Germans_have_the_constitutional_right_to_teach_religion_in_public_schools|Home schooling]]. Ich fand die Mentalität der Amis sehr Merkwürdig. Ich bin der Ansicht daß die Amis keine Ahnung haben, was Freiheit bedeutet. Immer diese blöde Nazi Kommentar. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 23:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Vielen Dank. Glücklicherweise kenne ich auch viele Amerikaner, die sich ohne Vorurteil für Deutschland interessieren. Ich denke, dass er einfach nicht zugeben kann, dass er sich in einer Sackgasse verrannt hatte. So etwas kommt vor. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 02:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Berlin Wall

2007-05-23T22:22:52Z

Schifra:

West Berlin was scarcely democratic in many senses that we would understand. Until German reunification it had a somewhat anomalous status, beingp art of neither the Federal Republic nor the DDR. It remained an 'occupied city' ruled by the Four Powers, in whom authority ultimately rested; West Berliners could not elect deputioes to the West german parliament (though they could elect city councillors and mayor).

:Yeah, it was so bad that people were risking their lives to escape ...

Now you are being fatuous. I'm not suggesting any equivalence of freedoms between east and west, as you well know, just that the use of 'democratic' to apply to West Berlin is open to question. Would you consider yourself free living in a city under (ultimately) foreign military government, in which you were not permitted to vote for your own country's legislature? [[User:John11:35|John11:35]] 08:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Until unification the final power was with the allied forces. In every day live that did not make much difference. However, it became important when members of the allied forces were involved. In a case of rape by an american soldier the trial was held at an american court and the German woman applied to be admitted and was refected. Unfortunately, this is only from my memory, but maybe some one else knows a reference. It must have been not to long before unification. Some time in the eigthies. On the funny side, there was a ban on knifes, which were considered weapons. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:22, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Large numbers

2007-05-23T21:37:12Z

Schifra: German usage

Confusingly, there are two systems for naming numbers using the ending ''-illion.'' The history of which system has been used in which countries at which times is complex.

In both systems, a "million" means a thousand thousands or 106.

Above the "million," one system introduces a new name for each new group of ''three'' zeroes. In particular, a "billion" means a thousand millions. This system is used in the United States and has been for a long time.

Another system introduces a new name for each group of ''six'' zeroes. Thus, a billion means a million millions. This used to be British usage, ''but no longer is;'' newspapers and official government reports now use the same system as the U. S., and this system is the one now taught in British schools. Some older Britons remain attached to the older usage.

This system in which the word ''billion'' means 1,000,000,000,000, though not used England, is used in many European countries. For example, the series million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion, trilliard, quadrillion, quadrilliard, quintillion, quintilliard (see below) is common use in Germany.

The word ''milliard,'' is unambiguous: it always means 1,000,000,000. It is rarely used in countries where a ''billion'' means the same thing. (Though rarely used, it is found in both British and American dictionaries and is thus a legitimate English word).

As a practical matter, it is important to be aware of the difference in meaning when reading old material, and to avoid using either set of names—especially the common but ambiguous ''billion''—in any context where misunderstanding can occur.

In technical or scientific writing, the problem does not arise because it is customary to use scientific notation (''1012'') or SI prefixes (''tera-'').

{|border=1
|-
| U. S. usage || Former British usage || Math
|-
| thousand || thousand || 103 = 1,000
|-
| million || million || 106 = 1,000,000
|-
| billion || thousand million or milliard || 109 = 1,000,000,000
|-
| trillion || billion || 1012 = 1,000,000,000
|-
| quadrillion || thousand billion or (very rarely) billiard || 1015 = 1,000,000,000,000
|-
| quintillion || trillion || 1018 = 1,000,000,000,000,000
|}

Words for numbers above 1018 may be found in dictionaries or tables of number names, but are almost never used. For years, mathematicians and computer scientists have enjoyed a sort of game of inventing systems for naming large numbers, but there is no practical need to render such names as words, and it is very questionable whether any of them should be considered to be "real" words; they are seldom encountered outside of discussions of large numbers and number naming.

The name ''googol,'' for a 1 followed by a hundred zeroes, i.e. 10100, was popularized by a 1940 popular book on mathematics, Kasner and Newman's classic ''Mathematics and the Imagination.'' It was invented by Kasner's nine-year-old nephew. It and Kasner's own ''googolplex'' (a 1 followed by googol of zeroes) have entered the language, but are only used figuratively. The word ''googol'' was the inspiration for the name of the search service ''Google.''

User talk:Schifra

2007-05-23T21:26:11Z

Schifra: /* Hallöchen */

Fixed costs

2007-05-23T21:17:45Z

Schifra:

Fixed costs are costs that do not vary based on the amount of production or output. In other words, these costs exist regardless of whether a company is in full production or shut down. Fixed costs include rent, property taxes and debt. Costs, that depend on the amount of output, are [[variable costs]].

[[category:economics]]

Fixed costs

2007-05-23T21:17:08Z

Schifra: link to variable costs added

Variable costs

2007-05-23T21:15:31Z

Schifra: link to fixed costs

Variable costs are expenses that vary directly with the size of a firm's output. As output increases over the range of production, the variable costs increase. Variable costs include raw materials, labor, fuel, and wear and tear on equipment. Costs, which do not change with the size of a firm's output, are [[fixed costs]].

[[category:economics]]

Dark Ages

2007-05-23T20:54:02Z

Schifra:

The Dark Ages lasted roughly from AD 450 to 1000. They were the early part of the [[Europ]]ean [[Middle Ages]]. Few written documents and buildings of this time are left over. From this it is concluded that little was accomplished culturally or academically. However, how much was actually achieved, but was destroyed during the migration of nations is difficult to find out.

Dark Ages

2007-05-23T20:53:37Z

Schifra: more details

The Dark Ages lasted roughly from AD 476 to 1000. They were the early part of the [[Europ]]ean [[Middle Ages]]. Few written documents and buildings of this time are left over. From this it is concluded that little was accomplished culturally or academically. However, how much was actually achieved, but was destroyed during the migration of nations is difficult to find out.

Talk:Creationism

2007-05-23T20:08:17Z

Schifra: /* "Scientists and Christian belief." */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Scientific theory

2007-05-23T19:43:34Z

Schifra: basis for industrial and technical developments

A '''scientific theory''' is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref>

It is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena.

To be considered [[science|scientific]], a theory must be [[falsifiable]].
This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>

Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref> Scientific theories are also the basis for industrial and technical developments.

A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]].

== Common usage ==
Evolutionists frequently argue that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref>
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''

The American Museum of Natural History exhibit on Darwin says: <ref>http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php</ref>
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''

In science a theory is something that ties together facts. For example, an apple falling to the ground when you let go of it is a fact. From this we can draw the conclusion that there is some force pulling it down. This theory is called the theory of gravity.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Pentagram

2007-05-23T19:24:53Z

Schifra:

The '''Pentagram''' depicts a five-pointed star circumscribed within a circle. Typically one of the points is in the upward position and each "arm" of the start represents an [[alchemy | alchemist]]'s element: earth, wind, fire, water. The fifth arm represents the "fifth element" ("quintessence"). This fifth element is composed of "ether" and represents the spirit. <ref>http://www.angelfire.com/id/robpurvis/pentagram.html</ref>

This orientation of the star, with the spirit held up above the elements, is part of the symbolism incorporated in the [[American flag]].

Many people (perhaps wrongly) believe the Pentagram is associated with [[Satanism | Satanic belief]] or worship, but the Satanic Pentagram is an Inverted Pentagram. Rather than one point at the top of the star, the Inverted Pentagram depicts two points at the top of the star and one at the bottom. In this fashion it also represents a goat's head (and vice versa). In the Inverted Pentagram, the spirit is below the elements. This is meant to represent the idea of idea of putting the material world and thus carnal desires before the spiritual health. <ref>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Hall/7802/penta.html</ref><ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/pentagram--meanings.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:religion]]

Electromagnetic wave

2007-05-23T18:24:48Z

Schifra:

A transverse wave composed of an oscillating electrical field and a magnetic field that oscillate perpendicular to the electric field.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

The spectrum of electromagnetic waves has an extremely wide range from radio waves, micro waves, TeraHertz radiation, infrared (IR) radiation, visible light, ultraviolett (UV) light, far UV radiation, soft X-rays, hard X-rays and <math>\gamma</math>-radiation.

Electromagnetic waves are well described by the classical laws of electricity and magnetism, known as Maxwell's equations:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! [[Partial Differential Equations]]
! [[Integral Equations]]
|-
| Gauss's Law of Conservation:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Gauss' Law Of Magnetism:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law of Circulation 
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

where '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''H''' denotes the auxiliary magnetic field, '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the force exerted upon a charged particle by the electric field and magnetic field.

[[Category:Physics]]

== References ==
<references />

Electromagnetic wave

2007-05-23T18:19:55Z

Schifra:

A transverse wave composed of an oscillating electrical field and a magnetic field that oscillate perpendicular to the electric field.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

Electromagnetic waves are well described by the classical laws of electricity and magnetism, known as Maxwell's equations:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! [[Partial Differential Equations]]
! [[Integral Equations]]
|-
| Gauss's Law of Conservation:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Gauss' Law Of Magnetism:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law of Circulation 
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

where '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''H''' denotes the auxiliary magnetic field, '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the force exerted upon a charged particle by the electric field and magnetic field.

[[Category:Physics]]

== References ==
<references />

Electromagnetic wave

2007-05-23T18:18:34Z

Schifra:

A transverse wave composed of an oscillating electrical field and a magnetic field that oscillate perpendicular to the electric field.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

Electromagnetic waves was predicted by the classical laws of electricity and magnetism, known as Maxwell's equations:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! [[Partial Differential Equations]]
! [[Integral Equations]]
|-
| Gauss's Law of Conservation:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Gauss' Law Of Magnetism:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law of Circulation 
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

where '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''H''' denotes the auxiliary magnetic field, '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the force exerted upon a charged particle by the electric field and magnetic field.

[[Category:Physics]]

== References ==
<references />

X-ray

2007-05-23T18:17:41Z

Schifra:

X-ray is an [[electromagnetic wave]] with a wavelength of about 10-10 meters, which is beyond the range of wavelength visible to the human eye. It is often used in hospitals to produce images of patient's internal organs and bones on a photographic plate.
*X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who received the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. [http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/]
Ron Curtis wrote:
:X-rays are part of the [[electromagnetic]] spectrum, which includes [[radio]] waves, [[microwave]]s, and visible [[light]]. They have an extremely short wavelength or high frequency, thus giving them high energy. X-rays can penetrate most materials except [[lead]] shielding. They are used in medicine and industry to examine structural problems. When they were discovered, the "X" stood for "unknown," because they were so mysterious. The name has been used ever since. [http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm]

The very first Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Röntgen for the discovery of X-rays. A year later his parents died and Röntgen inherited two million marks. He and his wife were now both rich and famous. He spent much time traveling, with little devotion to further scientific research. [http://ctct.essortment.com/wilhelmroentgen_rght.htm]

[[category: physics]]

==External links==
*[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/ Nobel Prize in Physics]
*[http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm X-rays - School for Champions: Succeed in Physical Science]
*[http://www.rhhct.org.uk/history.html Medical diagnostics using X-rays] - long, technical article written on high-school or college level

X-ray

2007-05-23T18:16:26Z

Schifra:

X-ray is an [[electromagnetic wave]] with a wavelength of about 10-10 meters, which is beyond the range of wavelength visible to the human eye. It is often used in hospitals to produce images of patient's internal organs and bones on a photographic plate.
*X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who received the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. [http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/]
Ron Curtis wrote:
:X-rays are part of the [[electromagnetic]] spectrum, which includes [[radio]] waves, [[microwave]]s, and visible [[light]]. They have an extremely short wavelength or high frequency, thus giving them high energy. X-rays can penetrate most materials except [[lead]] shielding. They are used in medicine and industry to examine structural problems. When they were discovered, the "X" stood for "unknown," because they were so mysterious. The name has been used ever since. [http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm]

The very first Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Röntgen for the discovery of the x-ray. A year later his parents died and Röntgen inherited two million marks. He and his wife were now both rich and famous. He spent much time traveling, with little devotion to further scientific research. [http://ctct.essortment.com/wilhelmroentgen_rght.htm]

[[category: physics]]

==External links==
*[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/ Nobel Prize in Physics]
*[http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm X-rays - School for Champions: Succeed in Physical Science]
*[http://www.rhhct.org.uk/history.html Medical diagnostics using X-rays] - long, technical article written on high-school or college level

Germany

2007-05-23T17:34:21Z

Schifra: /* Post WWII History */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|[[German language|German]]
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' (official name: '''Federal Republic of Germany''') is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth century, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

Aggressive nationalism fostered under the second empire of 1871, given greater impetus by the hubris of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and perverted into Nazism by the shock of defeat and the economic travails of the 1920s immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945.

===Post WWII History===

With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern infra structure up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European currency, the [[euro]].

===The states (Bundesländer) and their capitals===

(in alphabetical order)

Baden-Württemberg - Stuttgart

Bayern - München

Berlin - Berlin

Brandenburg - Potsdam

Bremen - Bremen

Hamburg - Hamburg

Hessen - Wiesbaden

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - Schwerin

Niedersachsen - Hannover

Nordrhein-Westfalen - Düsseldorf

Rheinland-Pfalz - Mainz

Saarland - Saarbrücken

Sachsen - Dresden

Sachsen-Anhalt - Magdeburg

Schleswig-Holstein - Kiel

Thüringen - Erfurt

===Tourism===

[[Image:The_castle3.jpg|left|thumb|Neuschwanstein Castle, a popular tourist destination.]]

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>

==Politics==
===Political Parties===
The political parties represented in the German [[parliament]] ([[Bundestag]]) are:

*[[Christian Democratic Union of Germany]] (CDU) - center-right
*Christian Social Union of [[Bavaria]] (CSU) - conservative
*Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - center-left
*Free Democratic Party (FDP) - liberal, centrist
*Alliance '90 / The Greens (Grüne) - left, green
*The Left Party - far left, partly communist

'''Note:''' CDU and CSU traditionally form a common parliamentary faction. The CSU only acts in Bavaria, the CDU in the other states.

==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However, his political power is small. The actual political power and head of government is the Chancellor ("Bundeskanzler"). The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel|Dr. Angela Merkel]]. The current government [http://www.bundesregierung.de] is a coalition between the two largest parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).

==Famous Germans==
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Georg Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Dietrich Buxtehude]]
*[[Ernst August von Hannover]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Dirk Nowitzki]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]
*[[Thomas Mann]]
*[[Hannah Arendt]]
*[[Rosa Luxemburg]]
*[[Marlene Dietrich]]
*[[Käthe Kollwitz]]
*[[Anne Frank]]
*[[Angela Merkel]]
*[[Gutenberg|Johannes Gutenberg]]
*[[Franz Beckenbauer]]
*[[Boris Becker]]
*[[Michael Schumacher]]
*[[Günter Grass]]
*[[Heinrich Böll]]
*[[Wim Wenders]]
*[[Roland Emmerich]]
*[[Rainer Werner Fassbinder]]
*[[Bertolt Brecht]]
*[[Loriot]]
*[[Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen]]
*[[Konrad Adenauer]]
*[[Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Otto Hahn]]
*[[Liese Meitner]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Heinrich Hesse]]
*[[Albrecht Dürer]]
*[[Tillman Bitterberg]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led ISAF operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. German military participates in NATO Force Protection Program, protecting US military bases located in Germany.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Germany| ]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Christian Democratic Union

2007-05-23T17:25:55Z

Schifra: /* Miscellaneous */

The '''Christian Democratic Union of Germany''' (Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, CDU) is a political party in [[Germany]].

==Ideology==
In the past, the party's ideology combined conservative, christian-minded and classical liberal as well as some etatist views and values. However, the CDU nowadays promotes mainly [[Social Democracy|social democratic]], [[Centrism|centrist]] and some left-wing christian ideas, for example forced [[Gender Mainstreaming]] programs, the idea of a [[multicultural society]], disbandment of the nation state/creating a transnational European state etc.

==Party Structure==
===Regional Party Groups===
The party has regional party groups, the federal group (''Bundesverband'', there is only one), the state group(s) (''Landesverbände'', singular: ''Landesverband''), the county group(s) (''Kreisverbände'', singular: ''Kreisverband'') and the local group(s) (''Ortsverbände'', singular: ''Ortsverband''). All local groups in a county (''Kreis'' or ''Landkreis'') are part of the county group, all county groups in a german (federal) state (''Land'' or ''Bundesland'') are part of the state group and all state groups form the federal group.

===Federal Leadership===
The present chairwoman (of the federal party group) is German [[chancellor]] [[Angela Merkel]], vice-chairman are [[Roland Koch]] ([[Minister-President]] of the federal state of [[Hesse]]), [[Jürgen Rüttgers]] (former Minister-President of state of [[North Rhine-Westphalia]], now member of the German federal government), [[Annette Schavan]] (member of the German federal government) and [[Christian Wulff]] (Minister-President of the federal state of [[Lower Saxony]]). [[Ronald Pofalla]]

===Miscellaneous===
The federal party group holds a think tank called [[Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung]] (''Konrad Adenauer Foundation''), named after first chancellor of post-[[World War II]] Germany [[Konrad Adenauer]]. The state party groups have similar foundations.

There's a special relationship between the CDU and the [[Christian Social Union of Bavaria]] (CSU). The CSU is legally a party of it's own, but cooperates closely with the CDU. The CDU only acts in the state of [[Bavaria]] and the CDU in the other states. However, the CSU is independent and has it's own political structure and party platform, which differs in some positions from the CDU's one, so that the CSU can be considered more conservative.

The CDU has special organizations for demographic groups (youth, women, older/retired citizens, etc.).

==Famous Party Members==
*[[Konrad Adenauer]], first chancellor of the [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]]
*[[Angela Merkel]], present chancellor of Germany, present chairwoman of the CDU
*[[Helmut Kohl]], former chancellor of Germany

===External Links===
*[http://www.cdu.de Website of the CDU]

Talk:Christian Democratic Union

2007-05-23T17:24:18Z

Schifra:

I would say the ideology part is nonsense.

Talk:Christian Democratic Union

2007-05-23T17:24:06Z

Schifra: Nonsense

I what say the ideology part is nonsense.

Germany

2007-05-23T17:21:50Z

Schifra: /* Political Parties */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|[[German language|German]]
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' (official name: '''Federal Republic of Germany''') is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth century, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

Aggressive nationalism fostered under the second empire of 1871, given greater impetus by the hubris of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and perverted into Nazism by the shock of defeat and the economic travails of the 1920s immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945.

===Post WWII History===

With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern infra structure up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European currency, the [[euro]].

[[Image:The_castle3.jpg|left|thumb|Neuschwanstein Castle, a popular tourist destination.]]

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>

==Politics==
===Political Parties===
The political parties represented in the German [[parliament]] ([[Bundestag]]) are:

*[[Christian Democratic Union of Germany]] (CDU) - center-right
*Christian Social Union of [[Bavaria]] (CSU) - conservative
*Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - center-left
*Free Democratic Party (FDP) - liberal, centrist
*Alliance '90 / The Greens (Grüne) - left, green
*The Left Party - far left, partly communist

'''Note:''' CDU and CSU traditionally form a common parliamentary faction. The CSU only acts in Bavaria, the CDU in the other states.

==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However, his political power is small. The actual political power and head of government is the Chancellor ("Bundeskanzler"). The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel|Dr. Angela Merkel]]. The current government [http://www.bundesregierung.de] is a coalition between the two largest parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).

==Famous Germans==
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Georg Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Dietrich Buxtehude]]
*[[Ernst August von Hannover]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Dirk Nowitzki]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]
*[[Thomas Mann]]
*[[Hannah Arendt]]
*[[Rosa Luxemburg]]
*[[Marlene Dietrich]]
*[[Käthe Kollwitz]]
*[[Anne Frank]]
*[[Angela Merkel]]
*[[Gutenberg|Johannes Gutenberg]]
*[[Franz Beckenbauer]]
*[[Boris Becker]]
*[[Michael Schumacher]]
*[[Günter Grass]]
*[[Heinrich Böll]]
*[[Wim Wenders]]
*[[Roland Emmerich]]
*[[Rainer Werner Fassbinder]]
*[[Bertolt Brecht]]
*[[Loriot]]
*[[Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen]]
*[[Konrad Adenauer]]
*[[Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Otto Hahn]]
*[[Liese Meitner]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Heinrich Hesse]]
*[[Albrecht Dürer]]
*[[Tillman Bitterberg]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led ISAF operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. German military participates in NATO Force Protection Program, protecting US military bases located in Germany.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Germany| ]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Germany

2007-05-23T17:20:13Z

Schifra: /* Post WWII history added */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|[[German language|German]]
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' (official name: '''Federal Republic of Germany''') is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth century, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

Aggressive nationalism fostered under the second empire of 1871, given greater impetus by the hubris of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and perverted into Nazism by the shock of defeat and the economic travails of the 1920s immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945.

===Post WWII History===

With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern infra structure up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European currency, the [[euro]].

[[Image:The_castle3.jpg|left|thumb|Neuschwanstein Castle, a popular tourist destination.]]

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>

==Politics==
===Political Parties===
The political parties represented in the German [[parliament]] ([[Bundestag]]) are:

*[[Christian Democratic Union of Germany]] (CDU) - censtrist
*Christian Social Union of [[Bavaria]] (CSU) - conservative
*Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - center-left
*Free Democratic Party (FDP) - liberal, centrist
*Alliance '90 / The Greens (Grüne) - left, green
*The Left Party - far left, partly communist

'''Note:''' CDU and CSU traditionally form a common parliamentary faction. The CSU only exists in Bavaria.

==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However, his political power is small. The actual political power and head of government is the Chancellor ("Bundeskanzler"). The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel|Dr. Angela Merkel]]. The current government [http://www.bundesregierung.de] is a coalition between the two largest parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).

==Famous Germans==
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Georg Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Dietrich Buxtehude]]
*[[Ernst August von Hannover]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Dirk Nowitzki]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]
*[[Thomas Mann]]
*[[Hannah Arendt]]
*[[Rosa Luxemburg]]
*[[Marlene Dietrich]]
*[[Käthe Kollwitz]]
*[[Anne Frank]]
*[[Angela Merkel]]
*[[Gutenberg|Johannes Gutenberg]]
*[[Franz Beckenbauer]]
*[[Boris Becker]]
*[[Michael Schumacher]]
*[[Günter Grass]]
*[[Heinrich Böll]]
*[[Wim Wenders]]
*[[Roland Emmerich]]
*[[Rainer Werner Fassbinder]]
*[[Bertolt Brecht]]
*[[Loriot]]
*[[Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen]]
*[[Konrad Adenauer]]
*[[Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Otto Hahn]]
*[[Liese Meitner]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Heinrich Hesse]]
*[[Albrecht Dürer]]
*[[Tillman Bitterberg]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led ISAF operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. German military participates in NATO Force Protection Program, protecting US military bases located in Germany.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Germany| ]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Germany

2007-05-23T17:07:18Z

Schifra: /* War on Terror */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|[[German language|German]]
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' (official name: '''Federal Republic of Germany''') is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth century, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

Aggressive nationalism fostered under the second empire of 1871, given greater impetus by the hubris of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and perverted into Nazism by the shock of defeat and the economic travails of the 1920s immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945. With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern productivity and wages up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European exchange currency, the [[euro]].

[[Image:The_castle3.jpg|left|thumb|Neuschwanstein Castle, a popular tourist destination.]]

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>

==Politics==
===Political Parties===
The political parties represented in the German [[parliament]] ([[Bundestag]]) are:

*[[Christian Democratic Union of Germany]] (CDU) - censtrist
*Christian Social Union of [[Bavaria]] (CSU) - conservative
*Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - center-left
*Free Democratic Party (FDP) - liberal, centrist
*Alliance '90 / The Greens (Grüne) - left, green
*The Left Party - far left, partly communist

'''Note:''' CDU and CSU traditionally form a common parliamentary faction. The CSU only exists in Bavaria.

==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However, his political power is small. The actual political power and head of government is the Chancellor ("Bundeskanzler"). The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel|Dr. Angela Merkel]]. The current government [http://www.bundesregierung.de] is a coalition between the two largest parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).

==Famous Germans==
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Georg Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Dietrich Buxtehude]]
*[[Ernst August von Hannover]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Dirk Nowitzki]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]
*[[Thomas Mann]]
*[[Hannah Arendt]]
*[[Rosa Luxemburg]]
*[[Marlene Dietrich]]
*[[Käthe Kollwitz]]
*[[Anne Frank]]
*[[Angela Merkel]]
*[[Gutenberg|Johannes Gutenberg]]
*[[Franz Beckenbauer]]
*[[Boris Becker]]
*[[Michael Schumacher]]
*[[Günter Grass]]
*[[Heinrich Böll]]
*[[Wim Wenders]]
*[[Roland Emmerich]]
*[[Rainer Werner Fassbinder]]
*[[Bertolt Brecht]]
*[[Loriot]]
*[[Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen]]
*[[Konrad Adenauer]]
*[[Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Otto Hahn]]
*[[Liese Meitner]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Heinrich Hesse]]
*[[Albrecht Dürer]]
*[[Tillman Bitterberg]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led ISAF operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. German military participates in NATO Force Protection Program, protecting US military bases located in Germany.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Germany| ]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Angela Merkel

2007-05-23T17:05:37Z

Schifra:

[[Image:Angelamerkel.jpg|thumb|right|Chancellor Angela Merkel]]
'''Angela Merkel''' (born 17th July 1954) is the leader of the [[German Christian Democratic Party]] (CDU) and the current Chancellor (Bundeskanzlerin) of [[Germany]]. She was born in [[Hamburg]] and raised in the former [[German Democratic Republic]], where she also finished her PhD in theoretical Physics/Chemistry.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Merkel, Angela}}
[[category:political people]]

Angela Merkel

2007-05-23T17:04:13Z

Schifra:

[[Image:Angelamerkel.jpg|thumb|right|Chancellor Angela Merkel]]
'''Angela Merkel''' (born 17th July 1954) is the leader of the [[German Christian Democratic Party]] (CDU) and the current Chancellor of [[Germany]]. She was born in [[Hamburg]] and raised in the former [[German Democratic Republic]], where she also finished her PhD in theoretical Physics/Chemistry.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Merkel, Angela}}
[[category:political people]]

Germany

2007-05-23T17:02:51Z

Schifra: /* Executive Branch */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|[[German language|German]]
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' (official name: '''Federal Republic of Germany''') is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth century, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

Aggressive nationalism fostered under the second empire of 1871, given greater impetus by the hubris of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and perverted into Nazism by the shock of defeat and the economic travails of the 1920s immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945. With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Germany|Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern productivity and wages up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European exchange currency, the [[euro]].

[[Image:The_castle3.jpg|left|thumb|Neuschwanstein Castle, a popular tourist destination.]]

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>

==Politics==
===Political Parties===
The political parties represented in the German [[parliament]] ([[Bundestag]]) are:

*[[Christian Democratic Union of Germany]] (CDU) - censtrist
*Christian Social Union of [[Bavaria]] (CSU) - conservative
*Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) - center-left
*Free Democratic Party (FDP) - liberal, centrist
*Alliance '90 / The Greens (Grüne) - left, green
*The Left Party - far left, partly communist

'''Note:''' CDU and CSU traditionally form a common parliamentary faction. The CSU only exists in Bavaria.

==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However, his political power is small. The actual political power and head of government is the Chancellor ("Bundeskanzler"). The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel|Dr. Angela Merkel]]. The current government [http://www.bundesregierung.de] is a coalition between the two largest parties, the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).

==Famous Germans==
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]]
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Georg Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Dietrich Buxtehude]]
*[[Ernst August von Hannover]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Dirk Nowitzki]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]
*[[Thomas Mann]]
*[[Hannah Arendt]]
*[[Rosa Luxemburg]]
*[[Marlene Dietrich]]
*[[Käthe Kollwitz]]
*[[Anne Frank]]
*[[Angela Merkel]]
*[[Gutenberg|Johannes Gutenberg]]
*[[Franz Beckenbauer]]
*[[Boris Becker]]
*[[Michael Schumacher]]
*[[Günter Grass]]
*[[Heinrich Böll]]
*[[Wim Wenders]]
*[[Roland Emmerich]]
*[[Rainer Werner Fassbinder]]
*[[Bertolt Brecht]]
*[[Loriot]]
*[[Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen]]
*[[Konrad Adenauer]]
*[[Friedrich Händel]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Otto Hahn]]
*[[Liese Meitner]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Heinrich Hesse]]
*[[Albrecht Dürer]]
*[[Tillman Bitterberg]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. German military participates in NATO Force Protection Program, protecting US military bases located in Germany.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Germany| ]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Cheese

2007-05-23T16:16:27Z

Schifra: /* Soft cheeses */

[[Image:Cheese.jpg|thumb|180px|Blue Stilton, a fine traditional English cheese.]]

'''Cheese''' is a solidified dairy product. Cheese making starts with the solidification of milk proteins, usually by the addition of [[rennet]] (a mixture of [[enzyme]]s) or an edible acid, which produces [[curds]]. For most types of cheese the [[curds]] is separated from the liquid, the [[whey]], and then [[aging|aged]], sometimes for many years. Salt is also often an ingredient in cheese recipes.

==Sources Used to Make Cheese==

Most cheese is made from [[cow]]'s [[milk]], although technically, any large [[mammal]]'s milk can be used. Some common sources of milk for making cheese other than cows include:

*[[Goat]] milk (e.g. Chevre cheese)
*[[Sheep]] milk (e.g. Roquefort)
*[[Yak]] milk.
*[[Buffalo]] milk

==Cheese History==

[[France]] is especially renowned as a cheese producer, and their president [[Charles de Gaulle]] famously said : "How can a country with 300 different kinds of cheese agree on anything?". However, many French cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk and their transport across international borders is therefore forbidden for health reasons owing to potentially toxic bacterium ''listeria''. Physicians recommend that the cheeses should not be coumsed by [[pregnancy|pregnant]] women or young children. Certain French cheeses (such as Epoisses) are so smelly to keep up the urban legend that their carriage is banned even on French [[public transport]].

It is most likely that the invention of cheesemaking was a way of preserving excess milk for leaner times.

==Varieties==

There are literally thousands of varieties of cheese made in the world today. The best selection with more than thousand varieties is offered in the Kaufhaus des Westen, Berlin, Germany [http://www.kadewe-berlin.de/kaese_engl.php]. Some well known varieties are:

===Hard cheeses===
*Cheddar (A hard red or white cheese, originally from the [[England|English]] West country, but also now made worldwide in countries including [[Ireland]], [[Canada]], [[New Zealand]], and [[Scotland]])
*Parmesan ([[Italy|Italian]] very hard cheese.)
*Romano (Another Italian hard cheese)
*Gouda ([[Netherlands|Dutch]] cheese, with a yellow wax rind.)
*Monterey Jack ([[America]]n.)
*Mozzarella (A very soft white cheese from Italy, traditionally made with buffalo's milk.)
*Emmenthal (A [[Switzerland|Swiss]] cheese, characterised by large holes.)
*Cheshire (A hard red or white cheese, more crumbly than Cheddar with a salty taste. Made in Cheshire or North Shropshire. Mrs Appleby's Cheshire has won international renown.)

===Blue cheeses===
*Blue Stilton (English crumbly blue cheese, a non-blue variety also exists.)
*Roquefort (The [[France|French]] king of blue cheeses, made from sheep's milk in a cave.)
*Cheshire Blue (Mild blue cheese with a salty flavour)

===Soft cheeses===
*Feta (Soft and crumbly [[Greece|Greek]] sheep's or mixture of sheep's and goat's milk cheese)
*Brie (a French soft cheese, not particularly smelly.)
*Camembert (a French soft cheese, fairly smelly.)
*Muenster (a French soft cheese)
*Cottage cheese (a very runny soft curd cheese).

===Synthetic cheeses===
*American (a very mild [[ersatz]] cheddar, processed for a smooth texture, and often delivered by unusual methods, such as in cans, as strings, or as a spray.

==Non-cheese cheeses==

Head cheese, known as brawn in the UK and by other names in other parts of the world, is made from meat taken from the head of an animal - pigs, calves and cows are used - that might otherwise remain uneaten for aesthetic reasons. It sometimes includes meat from other normally unappetising areas such as the feet or organs. The meat is chopped or shredded and set in [[gelatine]]. It is usually eaten cold or at room temperature as a luncheon meat. In the southern states of the US this is sometimes also known as sousemeat and pickled in vinegar.

[[Lemon]] cheese is another name for lemon curd in the UK. Fruit cheeses are sometimes made with other citrus fruit.

==Cheese in Culture==

In [[England]], the traditional sport of [[cheese-rolling]] remains locally popular. [http://www.cheese-rolling.co.uk/]

[[James McIntyre]], a [[Canadian]] poet, was fond of writing [[poems]] and [[ode]]s to cheese. This is not because he thought the subject was funny, or ironic. Rather, McIntyre saw cheese production in [[Canada]] as a [[symbol]] of the strong growth in the Canadian [[economy]]. Many people today find his works quite humorous, but McIntyre's "[[Ode on the Mammoth Cheese]]" is considered by most poetry [[scholars]] not only his best work, but his ultimate achievement.

The original family name of comedian [[John Cleese]] was Cheese, but was changed to Cleese by his father. Cleese is famous, of course, for playing the frustrated customer in the Cheese Shop sketch on the ''[[Monty Python|Monty Python's Flying Circus]]'' television show.

Cheese is considered by some as a palliative for various internal diseases.

In the animated series ''Wallace & Gromit'', cheese plays an important role. Not only is Wensleydale cheese their favorite variety but in ''A Grand Day Out'' they visit the moon because it is made of cheese.

[[Category:Dairy products]]

Cheese

2007-05-23T16:15:36Z

Schifra: /* Sources Used to Make Cheese */

[[Image:Cheese.jpg|thumb|180px|Blue Stilton, a fine traditional English cheese.]]

'''Cheese''' is a solidified dairy product. Cheese making starts with the solidification of milk proteins, usually by the addition of [[rennet]] (a mixture of [[enzyme]]s) or an edible acid, which produces [[curds]]. For most types of cheese the [[curds]] is separated from the liquid, the [[whey]], and then [[aging|aged]], sometimes for many years. Salt is also often an ingredient in cheese recipes.

==Sources Used to Make Cheese==

Most cheese is made from [[cow]]'s [[milk]], although technically, any large [[mammal]]'s milk can be used. Some common sources of milk for making cheese other than cows include:

*[[Goat]] milk (e.g. Chevre cheese)
*[[Sheep]] milk (e.g. Roquefort)
*[[Yak]] milk.
*[[Buffalo]] milk

==Cheese History==

[[France]] is especially renowned as a cheese producer, and their president [[Charles de Gaulle]] famously said : "How can a country with 300 different kinds of cheese agree on anything?". However, many French cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk and their transport across international borders is therefore forbidden for health reasons owing to potentially toxic bacterium ''listeria''. Physicians recommend that the cheeses should not be coumsed by [[pregnancy|pregnant]] women or young children. Certain French cheeses (such as Epoisses) are so smelly to keep up the urban legend that their carriage is banned even on French [[public transport]].

It is most likely that the invention of cheesemaking was a way of preserving excess milk for leaner times.

==Varieties==

There are literally thousands of varieties of cheese made in the world today. The best selection with more than thousand varieties is offered in the Kaufhaus des Westen, Berlin, Germany [http://www.kadewe-berlin.de/kaese_engl.php]. Some well known varieties are:

===Hard cheeses===
*Cheddar (A hard red or white cheese, originally from the [[England|English]] West country, but also now made worldwide in countries including [[Ireland]], [[Canada]], [[New Zealand]], and [[Scotland]])
*Parmesan ([[Italy|Italian]] very hard cheese.)
*Romano (Another Italian hard cheese)
*Gouda ([[Netherlands|Dutch]] cheese, with a yellow wax rind.)
*Monterey Jack ([[America]]n.)
*Mozzarella (A very soft white cheese from Italy, traditionally made with buffalo's milk.)
*Emmenthal (A [[Switzerland|Swiss]] cheese, characterised by large holes.)
*Cheshire (A hard red or white cheese, more crumbly than Cheddar with a salty taste. Made in Cheshire or North Shropshire. Mrs Appleby's Cheshire has won international renown.)

===Blue cheeses===
*Blue Stilton (English crumbly blue cheese, a non-blue variety also exists.)
*Roquefort (The [[France|French]] king of blue cheeses, made from sheep's milk in a cave.)
*Cheshire Blue (Mild blue cheese with a salty flavour)

===Soft cheeses===
*Feta (Soft and crumbly [[Greece|Greek]] sheep milk cheese)
*Brie (a French soft cheese, not particularly smelly.)
*Camembert (a French soft cheese, fairly smelly.)
*Muenster (a French soft cheese)
*Cottage cheese (a very runny soft curd cheese).

===Synthetic cheeses===
*American (a very mild [[ersatz]] cheddar, processed for a smooth texture, and often delivered by unusual methods, such as in cans, as strings, or as a spray.

==Non-cheese cheeses==

Head cheese, known as brawn in the UK and by other names in other parts of the world, is made from meat taken from the head of an animal - pigs, calves and cows are used - that might otherwise remain uneaten for aesthetic reasons. It sometimes includes meat from other normally unappetising areas such as the feet or organs. The meat is chopped or shredded and set in [[gelatine]]. It is usually eaten cold or at room temperature as a luncheon meat. In the southern states of the US this is sometimes also known as sousemeat and pickled in vinegar.

[[Lemon]] cheese is another name for lemon curd in the UK. Fruit cheeses are sometimes made with other citrus fruit.

==Cheese in Culture==

In [[England]], the traditional sport of [[cheese-rolling]] remains locally popular. [http://www.cheese-rolling.co.uk/]

[[James McIntyre]], a [[Canadian]] poet, was fond of writing [[poems]] and [[ode]]s to cheese. This is not because he thought the subject was funny, or ironic. Rather, McIntyre saw cheese production in [[Canada]] as a [[symbol]] of the strong growth in the Canadian [[economy]]. Many people today find his works quite humorous, but McIntyre's "[[Ode on the Mammoth Cheese]]" is considered by most poetry [[scholars]] not only his best work, but his ultimate achievement.

The original family name of comedian [[John Cleese]] was Cheese, but was changed to Cleese by his father. Cleese is famous, of course, for playing the frustrated customer in the Cheese Shop sketch on the ''[[Monty Python|Monty Python's Flying Circus]]'' television show.

Cheese is considered by some as a palliative for various internal diseases.

In the animated series ''Wallace & Gromit'', cheese plays an important role. Not only is Wensleydale cheese their favorite variety but in ''A Grand Day Out'' they visit the moon because it is made of cheese.

[[Category:Dairy products]]