Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Berliner

2007-04-12T02:46:20Z

Teresita: Reverted misguided edit by Hoj

A '''Berliner Pfannkuchen''' (often called simply '''Berliner''') is a type of [[pastry]] common in parts of [[Germany]], especially [[Berlin]]. It is usually filled with jam or [[marmalade]], and sprinkled with powdered [[sugar]]. Allegations of being a [[donut]] are totally unfounded, due to the lack of a hole.

Some people assume that [[John F. Kennedy]] referred to this food when he said ''"Ich bin ein Berliner."''in a speech that he made in [[West Berlin]] on June 26, 1963.

The sentence is grammatically correct German, albeit ambiguous in meaning - ''"Berliner"'' is intended to mean''"person from Berlin"'' (compare to "[[New York]]er"), in which case the sentence translates to ''"I am a person from Berlin"'' rather than ''"I am a donut"'' - clearly, the "donut" meaning cannot be taken literally. It is obvious what Kennedy intended, as the other translation makes no sense and would have no place in a diplomatic speech.
Additionally, the food was not called "Berliner" in that region at that time, but rather "''Pfannkuchen''" (pancake) {{fact}}.

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Berliner

2007-04-12T02:43:26Z

Teresita:

Baptism

2007-04-12T02:10:46Z

Teresita: New page: '''Baptism''' refers to the sacrament of initiation in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, considered to be necessary for salvation in accordance with Jesus' teaching...

'''Baptism''' refers to the [[sacrament]] of initiation in the [[Catholic]] and [[Eastern Orthodox]] traditions, considered to be necessary for salvation in accordance with Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 '''Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'''. Because of this, infants are baptized a few weeks after being born. In the Catholic ritual, water is poured over the head of the child while the priest repeats the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, "I baptize you (name) in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Adult converts to Catholicism are immersed in water for baptism during Easter vigil.

In the Protestant tradition, the water in John 3:5 is assumed to be the waters of birth and being born again refers to spiritual renewal. Thus baptism becomes an ordinance performed after conversion, and is rarely administered to infants (paedobaptism).

Prime number

2007-04-12T00:55:51Z

Teresita:

'''Prime numbers''' are those [[number]]s that are divisible by only 1 and itself. The only even prime number is 2. There is no upper limit to the quantity of primes, but there is no function for deriving the nth prime.

==The Prime Numbers==
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ... are prime numbers.

==The Largest Known Prime==

The largest known prime is <math>2^{32582657}+1</math>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

2007-04-12T00:11:41Z

Teresita: /* It saved lives! */

==It saved lives!==
Operation Downfall was the allied plan to invade the Imperial Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic on November 1, 1945 and then Operation Coronet on March 1, 1946. Allied bombing raids would've continued into 1946 and by the end of hostilities there would've been massive civilian casualties. The Second World War would have ended with a much greater toll in human lives then it did. Droping two atomic bombs on two cities that would've been destroyed by conventional means expedited an end to that conflict. Waiting any longer would have resulted in implementing Operation Downfall. Waiting would have meant continued warfare and loss of lives.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== It was to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan ==

The allies had agreed to a partitioning of Germany after the victory over Hitler. The United States, however, had conducted the Pacific War practically alone and we did not intend to share the fruits of victory with the Soviet Union after a protracted sea-land invasion of the home islands by both countries. Therefore, Harry Truman undertook to force Japan to capitulate before the USSR could mobilize by knocking out two Japanese cities with the nuclear bombs. The detonations also had a dampening effect on further Soviet aggression until 1949 when they obtained their own atomic devices. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 20:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Savior

2007-04-11T23:07:23Z

Teresita: New page: The '''Savior''' is the being, descendent of Eve, prophesied in Genesis 3:15 to execute justice upon the serpent (Satan) for tempting Eve to fall from grace. God said, '''"And...

The '''Savior''' is the being, descendent of Eve, prophesied in Genesis 3:15 to execute justice upon the serpent ([[Satan]]) for tempting [[Eve]] to fall from [[grace]]. God said, '''"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."''' This prophesy was fulfilled in the person of [[Jesus Christ]], who was born of woman ("her seed"), endured suffering under sinful men ("thou shalt bruise his heel") but vanquished the serpent once and for all though his victory at the cross ("it shall bruise thy head").

Fall of man

2007-04-11T22:59:38Z

Teresita: New page: The '''Fall of man''' is the Judeo-Christian theological concept that mankind lived in an ideal state until sin entered the world, which produced evil, disease, death, and a gr...

The '''Fall of man''' is the Judeo-Christian theological concept that mankind lived in an ideal state until sin entered the world, which produced [[evil]], [[disease]], [[death]], and a gradual decline in human lifespans and moral turpitude, necessitating the advent of a [[Savior]]. Biological and social [[evolution]] stands in stark opposition to this concept by proposing that men emerged from more primitive species and moved from darkness to civilization, enlightenment, and ever-increasing affluence and lifespans.

Prostitution

2007-04-11T22:45:56Z

Teresita: /* Prostitution in the Old Testament */

'''Prostitution''' is the exchange of sexual favors for [[money]]. The Bible in general holds prostitution in contempt. Only [[Rahab]] the harlot is redeemed for receiving two spies from Joshua and allowing them to escape their pursuers.

In the United States, prostitution is legal in the state of [[Nevada]] but heavily regulated, and outlawed elsewhere. [[Libertarian]]s consider prostitution to be a [[victimless crime]] on the order of using recreational drugs.

== Prostitution in the Old Testament ==

In the Law of Moses, prostitution is explicity forbidden only to the daughters of priests in the Aaronic order ([[Leviticus]] 21:9) and it is forbidden for priests to marry a prostitute (cf. verse 14).

Prostitution

2007-04-11T22:44:53Z

Teresita:

'''Prostitution''' is the exchange of sexual favors for [[money]]. The Bible in general holds prostitution in contempt. Only [[Rahab]] the harlot is redeemed for receiving two spies from Joshua and allowing them to escape their pursuers.

In the United States, prostitution is legal in the state of [[Nevada]] but heavily regulated, and outlawed elsewhere. [[Libertarian]]s consider prostitution to be a [[victimless crime]] on the order of using recreational drugs.

== Prostitution in the Old Testament ==

In the Law of Moses, prostitution is forbidden only to the daughters of priests in the Aaronic order ([[Leviticus]] 21:9) and it is forbidden for priests to marry a prostitute (cf. verse 14).

The Magician's Nephew

2007-04-11T20:39:14Z

Teresita: Backing up

''The Magician's Nephew'' is a novel by [[C.S. Lewis]] and is sixth in [[The Chronicles of Narnia]]. In chronological order it comes first. It was originally published in 1955.

==Summary==
Two children called Digory and Polly are exploring on a wet rainy day when they find themselves in Diggory's Uncle's study. They are tricked into heading out of the world and find themselves in a dying world called Charn. Due to Digory's curiosity Queen Jadis, the White Witch from [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]], comes on the scene and comes into England. She starts a riot and they quickly try to get her out of the scene. They try to return her to Charn but accidentally take her to a new world, Narnia. Aslan then creates Narnia and then knowing of Jadis' presence sends Digory on a mission to get a tree that will protect Narnia for many years. Diggory does Aslan's bidding and plants the tree. In return Aslan gives him some fruit to bring home which cures Diggory's dying mother. This book is the handoff to [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] in the chronology of Narnia. <ref> [[The Magician's Nephew]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing, 1955. </ref>

<references/>

The Magician's Nephew

2007-04-11T20:38:37Z

Teresita: /* Summary */

''The Magician's Nephew'' is a novel by [[C.S. Lewis]] and is sixth in [[The Chronicles of Narnia]]. In chronological order it comes first. It was originally published in 1955.

==Summary==
Two children called Digory and Polly are exploring on a wet rainy day when they find themselves in Diggory's Uncle's study. They are tricked into heading out of the world and find themselves in a dying world called Charn. Due to Digory's curiosity Queen Jadis, the White Witch from [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]], comes on the scene and comes into England. She starts a riot and they quickly try to get her out of the scene. They try to return her to Charn but accidentally take her to a new world, Narnia. Aslan then creates Narnia and then knowing of Jadis' presence sends Digory on a mission to get a tree that will protect Narnia for many years. Diggory does Aslan's bidding and plants the tree. In return Aslan gives him some fruit to bring home which cures Diggory's dying mother. This book is the handoff to [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]] in the chronology of Narnia, but it was in fact the final book to be written. <ref> [[The Magician's Nephew]] by C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing, 1955. </ref>

<references/>

Gandalf

2007-04-11T19:54:36Z

Teresita:

'''Gandalf''' (The White Wizard/The Gray Wizard) is the name of a fictional character from J.R.R Tolkien's series of books on [[Middle Earth]]. He is one of the five Istari, or Wizards, angelic spirits sent by the Lords of the West in human form to motivate the inhabitants of Middle-earth to resist the evil of Sauron. In the West he was the Maiar known as Olorin, and once served the Valar Manwe. To the Elves and Gondor he was known as Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim. To the east he goes not. At the conclusion of the War of the Ring he accompanied Frodo, Bilbo, Elrond, and Galadriel on a sea voyage to the Undying Lands.

Gandalf

2007-04-11T19:53:26Z

Teresita:

Gandalf (The White Wizard/The Gray Wizard) is the name of a fictional character from J.R.R Tolkien's series of books on [[Middle Earth]]. He is one of the five Istari, or Wizards, Maiar sent by the Lords of the West to motivate the inhabitants of Middle-earth to resist the evil of Sauron. In the West he was known as Olorin, and once served the Valar Manwe. To the Elves and Gondor he was known as Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim. To the east he goes not. At the conclusion of the War of the Ring he accompanied Frodo, Bilbo, Elrond, and Galadriel on a sea voyage to the Undying Lands.

Infinity

2007-04-11T19:24:47Z

Teresita:

'''Infinity''' is not an actual number but something which is approached as a limit. For instance, the operation of division by zero is undefined, but the function <math>F</math>x = <math>1/x</math> approaches infinity as x approaches zero.

[[Georj Cantor]]'s diagonal argument is an elegant proof demonstrating that the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of countable integers. The essence of the argument is that in any proposed list of all real numbers, a new real number not in the list can be constructed by taking the digits in a diagonal through the list and changing them to construct a new real number that differs from the nth entry at the nth position right of the decimal point.

Infinity is written using the symbol ∞

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Infinity

2007-04-11T19:23:56Z

Teresita:

'''Infinity''' is not an actual number but something which is approached as a limit. For instance, the operation of division by zero is undefined, but the function <math>F</math>x = <math>1/x</math> approaches infinity as x approaches zero.

[[Georj Cantor]]'s diagonal argument is an elegant proof demonstrating that the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of countable integers. The essence of the argument is that in any proposed list of all real numbers, a new real number not in the list can be constructed by taking the digits in a diagonal through the list and changing them to construct a new real number that differs from the nth entry at the nth position right of the decimal point.

Infinity is written using the symbol ∞

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Slamming the door

2007-04-11T16:38:58Z

Teresita: New page: This isn't a real topic, this is someone using Conservapedia to make a point. ~~~~

This isn't a real topic, this is someone using Conservapedia to make a point. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Biblical Canon

2007-04-11T14:39:51Z

Teresita: New page: '''Biblical canon''' refers to the concept of an officially recognized list of books which are considered part of the Bible. The first Christians used the Hellenized Alexandrian translati...

'''Biblical canon''' refers to the concept of an officially recognized list of books which are considered part of the Bible. The first Christians used the Hellenized Alexandrian translation known as the [[Septuagint]]. In the [[Council of Jamnia]] of 90 A.D. Jewish rabbis rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew scriptures, which omitted certain books such as [[Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Sirach]], and [[Tobit]]. The Eastern Christian churches continue to use the Greek Septuagint today, but the Western Church commissioned a Latin translation from [[Jerome]] in the early [[5th Century]] which came to be known as the [[Vulgate]]. It remains the official Roman Catholic bible. Beginning in 390 A.D. Christian councils began settling local disputes about the canon, but the issue was not settled definitively for Catholics until 1546 at the Council of Trent, in reaction to the Reformation's rejection of the deuterocanonical works as apocryphal. The 1611 [[King James Bible]] included these books but placed them in a separate section, and the Church of England continued to use the deuterocanonicals in the liturgy until forbidden by the [[Long Parliament]] in 1644. By the 1800's Protestant bibles began to omit the deuterocanonical books altogether, but Catholics today often face unfounded charges of having deleted books from the Old Testament.

== References ==

[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Canon of the Old Testament]

Hail Mary

2007-04-11T14:21:50Z

Teresita:

The '''Hail Mary''' refers to the Roman Catholic Prayer known as the ''Ave Maria'' which is commonly used in the personal devotion known as the Most Holy [[Rosary]] of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is not a part of the Mass, but the faithful often recite five decades of the Rosary in the time before Mass when Catholics gather in the sanctuary. The text of the prayer is as follows:

''Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.'' 
''Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. '' 
''Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.''

Hail Mary

2007-04-11T14:21:33Z

Teresita:

The '''Hail Mary''' refers to the Roman Catholic Prayer known as the ''Ave Maria'' which is commonly used in the personal devotion known as the Most Holy [[Rosary]] of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is not a part of the Mass, but the faithful often recite five decades of the Rosary in the time before Mass when Catholics gather in the sanctuary. The text of the prayer is as follows:

''Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.''
''Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. ''
''Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.''

Hail Mary

2007-04-11T14:21:04Z

Teresita: New page: The '''Hail Mary''' refers to the Roman Catholic Prayer known as the ''Ave Maria'' which is commonly used in the personal devotion known as the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin M...

The '''Hail Mary''' refers to the Roman Catholic Prayer known as the ''Ave Maria'' which is commonly used in the personal devotion known as the Most Holy [[Rosary]] of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is not a part of the Mass, but the faithful often recite five decades of the Rosary in the time before Mass when Catholics gather in the sanctuary. The text of the prayer is as follows:

''Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.''

Boot

2007-04-11T14:13:55Z

Teresita: /* Types of Boots */ Removed homophobic slur

'''Boots''' are a type of footwear that completely cover the foot and extend to a varying degree up the leg.

==Types of Boots==

*Work boots - Tough working footwear that are usually made of leather, have a tough sole with a deep tread and often has a steel toe for extra protection.
*Combat Boots - High-ankled work boots worn by soldiers.
*Bovver boots - A type of combat boot with an air-cushioned sole, especially those made by Dr Martens, popular amongst [[skinhead]]s, and other antisocial elements.<ref>http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/boot.html#bovver</ref>
*Cowboy Boots - Traditional American footwear, usually fashioned out of snake skin, have pointed toes, and are slipped onto the foot.
*Motorcycle Boots - Similar to work boots but often with steel plates.
*Fashion Boots - A type of boot in vogue, generally expensive and designed with aesthetic value taking precedence over practicality.
*Rubber boots - Also known as Wellington boots, these boots are waterproof and are most often made from rubber or a synthetic equivalent. They are usually worn when walking on wet or muddy ground, or to protect the wearer from heavy showers. In Britain and New Zealand, there is a light-hearted sport, known as wellie wanging, which involves throwing Wellington boots as far as possible. The boots, especially Black Rubber, are also popular items among many people.

==Kipling's poem==
'''Boots''' is also the title of a well-known poem by Rudyard Kipling. It begins:

:We're foot—slog—slog—slog—sloggin' over Africa— 
:Foot—foot—foot—foot—sloggin' over Africa 
:(Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin' up an' down again!) 
:There's no discharge in the war!<ref>[http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/boots/ Boots], by Rudyard Kipling</ref>

Every stanza ends with the rhythmic, repetitive refrain "Boots—boots—boots—boots—movin' up an' down again!/There's no discharge in the war!"

==Notes and references==
<references/>

{{Stub}}

Neanderthal

2007-04-11T13:47:50Z

Teresita:

Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans - [[Homo sapiens]].{{fact}}

Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidary branch.

[[Category:Primates]]

Pulsar

2007-04-11T13:29:20Z

Teresita: New page: A '''Pulsar''' is a neutron star whose magnetic axis is not aligned with the rotational axis. As a result, charged particles which accrete in a disk orbiting around the star's equator...

A '''Pulsar''' is a [[neutron star]] whose magnetic axis is not aligned with the rotational axis. As a result, charged particles which accrete in a disk orbiting around the star's equator are ejected along the magnetic poles, sweep across the sky, and in a very few cases can be detected from Earth as regular pulses in the radio frequency spectrum. Very often these pulses are spaced only a few [[millisecond]]s apart, indicating the incredible rotational speed of the pulsar.

In 1974 University of Massechusetts astronomer Joseph Taylor and his graduate student Russell Hulse discovered two pulsars in a very eccentric orbit around each other with a period of 7.75 hours. Over the course of twenty years, their observations of the star's periastron advance (analogous to the perihelion advance of [[Mercury]] but a much larger effect]] as well as the increase in the orbital period did much to confirm [[Einstein]]'s theory of [[general relativity]] and the two researchers were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics. <ref>David Darling. ''Gravity's Arc'', 2006, John Wiley & Sons</ref>

== References ==

<references />

User:Teresita/Barnstar

2007-04-11T12:28:22Z

Teresita: New page: Latinus 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)]]

[[Image:Barnstar.png|frame|{{{align|left}}}|Ruby is awarded the Working Man's Barnstar for all her particularly hard work on AfD. [[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)]]

File:Barnstar.png

2007-04-11T12:27:49Z

Teresita: Barnstar image

Barnstar image

User:Teresita/Userbox1

2007-04-11T05:15:07Z

Teresita:

<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|{{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999}}}}}}}}}}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|{{{2|{{{info-c|#EEE}}}}}}}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|{{{1|{{{id-c|#DDD}}}}}}}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}}; padding:{{{logo-padding|{{{id-p|1pt}}}}}}; line-height:{{{logo-line-height|{{{id-lh|1.25em}}}}}}; {{{logo-other-param|{{{id-op|}}}}}}" | '''{{{logo|{{{3|{{{test|test}}}}}}}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:{{{info-padding|{{{info-p|4pt}}}}}}; line-height:{{{info-line-height|{{{info-lh|1.25em}}}}}}; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}}; {{{info-other-param|{{{info-op|}}}}}}" | {{{info|{{{4|{{{info|''This user is a ____''}}}}}}}}}
|}</div>

User:Teresita/Userbox1

2007-04-11T05:10:04Z

Teresita: New page: <div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|{{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999}}}}}}}}}}}}; margin:1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="wi...

<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|{{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999}}}}}}}}}}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|{{{2|{{{info-c|#EEE}}}}}}}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|{{{1|{{{id-c|#DDD}}}}}}}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}}; padding:{{{logo-padding|{{{id-p|1pt}}}}}}; line-height:{{{logo-line-height|{{{id-lh|1.25em}}}}}}; {{{logo-other-param|{{{id-op|}}}}}}" | '''{{{logo|{{{3|{{{id|id}}}}}}}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:{{{info-padding|{{{info-p|4pt}}}}}}; line-height:{{{info-line-height|{{{info-lh|1.25em}}}}}}; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}}; {{{info-other-param|{{{info-op|}}}}}}" | {{{info|{{{4|{{{info|''info''}}}}}}}}}
|}</div>

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-04-11T04:22:00Z

Teresita: /* Absurd */

{{debate}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Power

2007-04-11T03:13:45Z

Teresita: New page: '''Power''' is the ability or authority to take effective action or exercise control. Thus in a deliberative body such as Congress, the faction able to assemble a majority bloc of votes i...

'''Power''' is the ability or authority to take effective action or exercise control. Thus in a deliberative body such as Congress, the faction able to assemble a majority bloc of votes is the faction in power. Putting three aircraft carriers into the North Arabian Sea is an example of the projection of military power.

In physics, power is the rate of work done per unit time. In electricity, power is the product of voltage and current. Both of these are expressed in watts.

Intifada

2007-04-11T01:11:57Z

Teresita:

'''Intifada''' is the Arabic word which means shudder, awaken, or an uprising<ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intifada</ref>. In politics this word refers to the ongoing terrorist actions taken by Palestinian "freedom fighter" against [[Israel]]. Many on the Palestian side claim that the second intifada was sparked when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. During the conflict, the Palestinians have used their tactics of killing innocent Israelis, and like always the international community, through the [[United Nations]], has rebuked Israel for attempting to deal with the ongoing threat to its people posed by [[suicide bombing|suicide bombers]] who target civilians.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Future

2007-04-11T01:06:27Z

Teresita: New page: The '''Future''' refers to events and states that have not yet come into existence. The biblical concept of predestination implies that future things are established from eternity. ...

The '''Future''' refers to events and states that have not yet come into existence. The biblical concept of [[predestination]] implies that future things are established from eternity. [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] theologians reject human [[free will]] where such freedom impugns God's sovereign power to foreordain human history.

== Future things in the Summa Theologica ==

In the [[Summa Theologica]] St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that future things remain contingent even while God knows them from his vantage in eternity. He wrote, ''"All things that are in time are present to God from eternity, not only because He has the types of things present within Him, as some say; but because His glance is carried from eternity over all things as they are in their presentiality. Hence it is manifest that contingent things are infallibly known by God, inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their presentiality; yet they are future contingent things in relation to their own causes."'' <ref>http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP014.html#FPQ14A13THEP1 '''Summa Theologica'''</ref>

== Future things in the Bible ==

In Isaiah chapter 41 God confidently issues a challenge to the oppressors of Israel to declare the things to come in the future, knowing that He alone possesses that power:

'''Isaiah 41:21''' ''Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. '''22''' Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. '''23''' Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. '''24''' Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.''

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Suicide bombing

2007-04-10T22:32:25Z

Teresita: /* Suicide bombing is used by Muslims in Iraq... */

== Homicide Bombing ==

It wasn't Fox News that invented this phrase, they copied the White House after they started using it: [http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006] [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide bombing is used by Muslims in Iraq... ==

As suicide bombing started out with the Tamali Tigers, this statement has a point of view that is being suggested (anti-muslim). Is it possible to reword this? There is also the kamikaze pilots of WWII, assassination of Czar Alexander II, Lod airport in Tel Aviv, London bombings. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I reworded it because the previous author conveniently stopped his history at Sept 10, 2001. Since that time, Muslims have pwned the suicide attack, and I cited documentation to back it up. I'm quite sure other editors at CP will agree. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Suicide bombing

2007-04-10T22:15:51Z

Teresita:

[[Image:Jhfnm.jpg|right|thumb|Suicide bombing of a bus in Israel.|200px]]
'''Suicide bombing''' is a terrorist tactic. Prior to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, the majority of suicide bombers were not [[Muslim]] and the majority of such attacks did not take place in the [[Middle East]]. Between 1980 and 2000 the [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] (aka LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers) carried out more suicide attacks, 168, than all other groups combined.
<ref>Jane's Intelligence Review, ""Suicide terrorism: a global threat"[http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml]</ref>.

From 1980 to 2003 however there were 315 suicide attacks, of which only 76 were carried out by the Tamil Tigers. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/p01s02-wome.html</ref> In Iraq there have been 188 suicide bombings since August 2003, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index (although some research puts the tally as high as 400.) The deadliest attack by LTTE, in 1996, killed 90 people, far short of the 2,992 killed by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001.

Suicide bombing is used by Muslims in [[Iraq]] against [[American]]s, and in [[Israel]] against [[Jew]]s. Occasionally, it is reported in [[Saudi Arabia]] as well.

The technique has been, however, most widely practiced secular [[Hindus]] in [[India]] and [[Sri Lanka]].
<ref>Tamil Tigers' tactics [http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/index.html]</ref>

[[Fox News]] suggested that the practice should be called "homicide bombing," "suicide murdering," or "homicide murdering" to reflect the [[evil]] nature of the tactic. (Reference needed)

==Reference==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Suicide bombing

2007-04-10T22:14:23Z

Teresita:

[[Image:Jhfnm.jpg|right|thumb|Suicide bombing of a bus in Israel.|200px]]
'''Suicide bombing''' is a terrorist tactic. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of suicide bombers are not [[Muslim]] and the majority of such attacks do not take place in the [[Middle East]]. Between 1980 and 2000 the [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] (aka LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers) carried out more suicide attacks, 168, than all other groups combined.
<ref>Jane's Intelligence Review, ""Suicide terrorism: a global threat"[http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml]</ref>.

From 1980 to 2003 however there were 315 suicide attacks, of which only 76 were carried out by the Tamil Tigers. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/p01s02-wome.html</ref> In Iraq there have been 188 suicide bombings since August 2003, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index (although some research puts the tally as high as 400.) The deadliest attack by LTTE, in 1996, killed 90 people, far short of the 2,992 killed by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001.

Suicide bombing is used by Muslims in [[Iraq]] against [[American]]s, and in [[Israel]] against [[Jew]]s. Occasionally, it is reported in [[Saudi Arabia]] as well.

The technique has been, however, most widely practiced secular [[Hindus]] in [[India]] and [[Sri Lanka]].
<ref>Tamil Tigers' tactics [http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/index.html]</ref>

[[Fox News]] suggested that the practice should be called "homicide bombing," "suicide murdering," or "homicide murdering" to reflect the [[evil]] nature of the tactic. (Reference needed)

==Reference==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Talk:James Maxwell

2007-04-10T21:05:43Z

Teresita: /* Strictly historical disclaimer needed. */

== Evolution comments by a physist? ==

What does the beliefs of a person who studied physics and atomic structure have to do with biology? These are about as distinct disciplines as computer science and law... and I know that my background in CS doesn't give me any insight into the goings on of the courts. Maybe if he was a biologist it would be noteworthy, but what authority does he have to state opinion that should be respected on biology? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Well, if that's your approach, then what authority did Darwin have to comment on evolution either???

: Comments by anthropologists are self-serving. We also want to know what bright people have to say from their independent vantage points.

: More generally, and this hardly seems necessary to repeat, don't delete facts from this website for liberal reasons not in our [[rules]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, your position is absurd. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The fact that some editors here are obsessed with the theory of evolution seems to have affected their ability to see clearly. Maxwell was a physicist. His expertise was in physics. Should the article on the Wright Brothers include their views on evolution? Maybe every biographical page should contain that person's views on evolution (except for anthropologists!). That is what follows from your logic. Frankly, I suspect that if Maxwell were alive today he would feel a little sheepish about his views on evolution (which, in fairness to him, were expressed well over 100 years ago). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. I suspect your comment above questioning Darwin's authority to comment on evolution might garner this site a couple of links from other sites (but not the good kind). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::P.P.S. You refer to deleting information for "liberal reasons". I stated my reasons clearly when I made the deletion. Exactly what is it that makes those reasons liberal? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You have deleted this factual information ''twice'' now. This should justify blocking your account. But I won't do that, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

::: James Maxwell was an eminent English scientist, and far smarter than Charles Darwin. Let the reader know Maxwell's views on evolution, and let the reader decide. Do not engage in liberal censorship of conservative facts here. This is not Wikipedia. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have moved your comments to where they belong chronologically. You will see that this highlights the fact that you ignored my question about why my edit was "liberal". Indeed you make the same unfounded assertion again!

:::: Your assertion that James Maxwell was "far smarter than Charles Darwin" sounds shrill and somewhat desperate. Whether he was smarter or not is irrelevant. He was a physicist and biology was not his area of expertise. Information must not only be factual, it must be relevant. If it is not relevant it amounts to no more than gossip. As you are aware the Conservapedia rules prohibit gossip. I will remove it unless you can provide a LOGICAL reason why it should remain.

:::: Finally, I do not appreciate you threatening me. I only removed the information a second time after receiving no response to my post above. I could equally say that you have reverted two of my edits. Are you suggesting there something special about your edits? Are we lowly editors forbidden to touch anything that you do? I didn't see that in the rules. Could you please advise at your earliest convenience. If it is a rule I don't want to transgress it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It's an interesting fact, so no reason to remove it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: It is gossip-esque. It is not relevant to a physicist. It is unsourced. If it was and interesting point and thus relevant to a biography in general, it should be attached to every biography. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, well, Horace, perfect logic. If one does not receive a response, within the specified time period ''set by you'', one is allowed to proceed! I would love that for driving, since I regularly speed. Maybe if I asked for an exemption, and didn't receive an answer in, say, 24 hours, I should be allowed to without penalty! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not specify a time period but as we appeared to be discussing the matter and he did not respond I made the assumption that I had convinced him of his error. Do you have anything to say on the substantive issue? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Lots. But Horace, only you and a few others see the need to try and convince a man what he believes in is false. That is presumptuous and rude beyond belief. It is also illogical. You might as well be spitting into the wind. And, you know it. So, it all goes back to motive. What is yours? We will all wait for the Students to decide, as this place belongs to the Students and Andy. Any decisions they make are the "right" ones, because this place is theirs, not ours. If we dislike their decisions, each of us has to decide, based upon individual conscience, if we can support and participate based upon those decisions, whatever they might be. In the meantime, howling at the wind, beating on the door, is only distracting and disruptive, I submit. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: TK, could you please elaborate on the importance of this passage in the article and how a physicist's views on biology are relevant? If they are relevant, should that be part of ''every'' biography that appears on this site? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So, is there ''any'' reason why it is there? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

Conservapedia does not censor non-gossipy facts of interest to users. Go to Wikipedia for that kind of censorship. Maxwell's views on evolution are ''not'' gossip. We won't be seeing that in the National Enquirer.

The liberal desire to censor this fact cannot prevail here. Maxwell was a brilliant scientist and a fellow Englishman of Darwin. Evolutionists cite the views of scientists in support of evolution (e.g., National Academy of Science), and it is certainly fair game to mention the views of scientists against evolution. And, yes, Maxwell was far smarter than Darwin. It's not "desperate" to state the obvious on a talk page. Just look at how they did in school, and where they ended up after school.

There are fundamental differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Including this fact about Maxwell's views illustrates that difference. We let the reader decide, and we do not censor this information here. Wikipedia will welcome those who prefer an environment that censors this information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:WHY IS IT A "LIBERAL DESIRE TO CENSOR"? I'm sorry to shout but I have asked several times and you have just ignored the question. I think I put my position pretty clearly and it has nothing to do with political ideology.

:Regretably you, however, appear to have the attitude that this factlette about Maxwell is of some significance because it promotes your worldview. That is not a legitimate reason for its inclusion. I am sure I have read somewhere here that you are some sort of lawyer. I would have thought that issues of relevance would be second nature to you.

:If you tell me that it is Conservapedia's policy to include reference to evolution in every biographical entry then (whilst I will regard it as bizarre) I will comply. But I will not think it a good policy because it is not scholarly.

:But, if that is not the policy then, in an entry of this length on one of the world's greatest physicists I regard the reference to his views on evolution as just totally out of place. I also regard your suggestion that I am seeking to sensor your views as highly ironic having regard to the well known goings-on around here (including, but not limited to, your threat to me above).

:I am not interested in engaging in an edit war. The problem is that I cannot help but see this matter as being driven by your desire to promote your own worldview overriding your desire for a scholarly article. I would be delighted if you could point out the error in my assessment of the situation. I have a genuine wish to see the best quality entries on this site. I am of the view that the inclusion of Maxwell's views on evolution merely confirm in the minds of a substantial number of readers that scholarship takes a back seat to ideology here. And I regret to say, I think that at the moment they are probably right. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 03:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In any case it appears that the assertion that Maxwell rejected Darwin's evolution is incorrect. See [http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html here].

:: Accordingly, I have removed the reference. I would be happy to discuss the matter further if you would like to do so but the article referred to above seems pretty clear and comprehensive. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 17:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You have again reverted my edit without any explanation whatsoever.

::: Did you read the article referred to above at all?

::: Did you consider explaining your action?

::: Have you just decided that you don't care about facts at all?

::: I really am genuinely mystified. How do you explain your behaviour to yourself? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: Horace, Maxwell rejected evolution. I've added the quote. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Good Easter to you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The quote isn't about animal evolution (and thus Darwin's theory) at all; he's making an argument that molecules can't evolve, a completely separate matter. ==[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's a new one ... that the "theory of evolution" doesn't refer to Darwin's theory? Even when spoken by Maxwell in 1873, when everyone was talking about Darwin? People may disagree with Maxwell's view, but there's no doubting that he rejected the theory of evolution. And please don't say this is "quote mining". See [[talk.origins]] terminology.

::: A good Easter to you, Jtl.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: When used without qualification in the late 20th and early 21st century, the "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory (as modified), yes. Possibly so in 1873 as well; I don't know and don't make any claim to. What's important is that it's clear that that ''in this quote'', it does not. "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules"; simply by saying "no theory of evolution", Maxwell is suggesting there can be multiple different theories of evolution accounting for different things; otherwise he would have said "the theory of evolution". But more importantly, he continues to qualify what kind of theory he's talking about here: one which might attempt to "account for the similarity of molecules". If he's referring to Darwin's theory, then he's saying the blindingly obvious: Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't account for the similarity of molecules; that's correct, but not interesting. Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to account for that similarity.
:;:: I don't think the question of whether this is quote mining is a necessary one to deal with here. Taken solely on its own terms, this quote is clearly not speaking about Darwin's theory of biological evolution.
:::: A good Easter to you, as well. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 22:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== On Maxwell and Evolution ==

From http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html

: No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity ''of molecules'', for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.

: None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.

The only writing that I can find by James Maxwell on evolution is this poem[http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/molecular-evolution/]
:At quite uncertain times and places,
:The atoms left their heavenly path,
:And by fortuitous embraces,
:Engendered all that being hath.
:And though they seem to cling together,
:And form "associations" here,
:Yet, soon or late, they burst their tether,
:And through the depths of space career.

:So we who sat, oppressed with science,
:As British asses, wise and grave,
:Are now transformed to wild Red Lions,
:As round our prey we ramp and rave.
:Thus, by a swift metamorphosis,
:Wisdom turns wit, and science joke,
:Nonsense is incense to our noses,
:For when Red Lions speak, they smoke.

:Hail, Nonsense! dry nurse of Red Lions,
:From thee the wise their wisdom learn,
:From thee they cull those truths of science,
:Which into thee again they turn.
:What combinations of ideas,
:Nonsense alone can wisely form!
:What sage has half the power that she has,
:To take the towers of Truth by storm?

:Yield, then, ye rules of rigid reason!
:Dissolve, thou too, too solid sense!
:Melt into nonsense for a season,
:Then in some nobler form condense.
:Soon, all too soon, the chilly morning,
:This flow of soul will crystallize,
:Then those who Nonsense now are scorning,
:May learn, too late, where wisdom lies.

As such, I am changing the sentence on the article page from
: Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution of fellow Englishman Charles Darwin.
to read
: Maxwell did not believe that the theory of evolution had any application to molecules and atoms.

If anyone wishes to change it to something else, I strongly suggest that they have a citation of something written by Maxwell that applies to the particular type of evolution in question (if it is about biology, then about biology - Darwin didn't make any claim that molecules had any application to his work in the Origin of Species).
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

----
It took me less than 15 minutes to find this:

In the heavens we discover by their light, and by their light alone, stars so distant from each other that no
material thing can ever have passed from one to another; [359] and yet this light, which is to us the sole evidence
of the existence of these distant worlds, tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds as
those which we find on earth. A molecule of hydrogen, for example, whether in Sirius or in Arcturus, executes its
vibrations in precisely the same time.
Each molecule therefore throughout the universe bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric system as
distinctly as does the metre of the Archives at Paris, or the double royal cubit of the temple of Karnac.
No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily
implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.
None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in
the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the
identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.
On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others [http://www.sonnetusa.com/bio/maxbio.pdf]

So does this mean he favored the [[Theory of evolution]], opposed it, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: It means that he had no opinion on biological theory of evolution. He just said it had no application to molecules. There is no 'higher' or 'lower' form of a molecule. While they may combine and break apart, this is not evolution any more than the changing state of a three ball billiards game is evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I read the quote above as (1) being an opinion on the biological theory of evolution and (2) a repudiation of that theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It still reads to me as making no explicit claim, one way or another, as to biological evolution. If anything, it's implicitely contrasting molecules, which don't have descent-with-modification and thus can't have a theory of evolution, with things which do have "continuous change", "growth and decay" and "generation or destruction", and thus might have theories of evolution. Without anything more explicit, I'd be disinclined to come to any conclusion firm enough to include in the article, but it sure sounds to me like he's at least open to the possibility of biological evolution. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 13:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== More from Maxwell ==

On the other hand, 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, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop,—not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural. Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limits of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created. (Page 176)

== Creationist? ==
[[Creationism]] currently defines creationism as the "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Assuming a 'creationist' is someone who believes in and/or espouses 'creationism' under this definition, then no, I don't think it's proper (from these quotations) to conclude that Maxwell was a creationist. It does seem likely that he believed in a creator of some sort who created the molecules, but that's a far cry from the "literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.". -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Very good point. It would be quite odd to see some of the well known modern atheist/pantheist scientists get listed as both atheist and creationist. The category has been removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''That's a new one ... that the "theory of evolution" doesn't refer to Darwin's theory? Even when spoken by Maxwell in 1873, when everyone was talking about Darwin? People may disagree with Maxwell's view, but there's no doubting that he rejected the theory of evolution. And please don't say this is "quote mining". See talk.origins terminology.'''
A good Easter to you, Jtl.--Aschlafly 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: <blockquote> When used without qualification in the late 20th and early 21st century, the "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory (as modified), yes. Possibly so in 1873 as well; I don't know and don't make any claim to. What's important is that it's clear that that in this quote, it does not. "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules"; simply by saying "no theory of evolution", Maxwell is suggesting there can be multiple different theories of evolution accounting for different things; otherwise he would have said "the theory of evolution". But more importantly, he continues to qualify what kind of theory he's talking about here: one which might attempt to "account for the similarity of molecules". If he's referring to Darwin's theory, then he's saying the blindingly obvious: Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't account for the similarity of molecules; that's correct, but not interesting. Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to account for that similarity.
I don't think the question of whether this is quote mining is a necessary one to deal with here. Taken solely on its own terms, this quote is clearly not speaking about Darwin's theory of biological evolution.
A good Easter to you, as well. --Jtl 22:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)</blockquote>
:: Ooh, this is fun. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Molecules have nothing to do with the Origin of Species. That is what Darwin put forward. Biological evolution - the power of nature to select traits that allows the species to flourish. Maxwell said that since all molecules are equal and there is no 'better' molecule, evolution has no place in physics. It is not a refutation of biological evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the mean time, can you please cite any writing by Maxwell that suggested that believed in creation as specified in the Bible. Until then, the bit about being a Creationist is unsourced and suspect. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I was just taking my cue from Andy, Mtur. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, Maxwell meant what he said. Darwin's theory of evolution was the talk of the day in England. Maxwell never, ever endorsed Darwin's theory, despite the likelihood of intense liberal pressure to do so. It's farfetched, almost comical, to suggest that Maxwell was not talking about Darwin's theory of evolution in 1873 when he referred to the "theory of evolution."

: This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm fine with leaving the quote on the page, without the claim that he was talking about biological evolution. If he's going to be classified as a 'creationist', though, we need either a definition of creationist other than 'someone who believes in the Biblical creation story' or a much different quote. All that said, I still maintain that the quote is very clearly not talking about Darwin's theory of biological evoution. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.'''

::: I didn't twist, contort, remove or censor the quote. I didn't modify any part of the article Andy had contributed to or (so far as I can tell) commented on. I removed the classification claiming that Maxwell as a creationist. Although it's not defined here, I assume a creationist is someone who believes in [[creationism]], which ''is'' defined here: "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Nothing in the quote speaks to Biblical literalism of any sort, nor has any other evidence been offered despite repeated requests for it. I think the reversion and the protection are wholly inappropriate. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: In his day, many people tried to apply the ideas of biological evolution to other disciplines. You had Social Darwinism as an example of this. The right or wrongness of Social Darwinism has no application to biological evolution. Some suggested that molecules evolved too - Maxwell is saying that this is not the case. This is again, not a commentary on biological evolution. If anything is to be said, it should be "James Maxwell did not belief that the theory of evolution could be applied to molecules." In this context, it is a rather boring statement and does not have any informational value. I still cannot find any indication that Maxwell was a creationist - any citations showing that be did belief in the literal truth of the Bible would be useful for disputing this. Until then, the category should not be applied to Maxwell. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Category==
''Moved from user talk:Ed Poor''

Could you look at the talk page for [[James Maxwell]] and address if the creationist category is applicable? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think Andy already did. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I see that much has gone on on the Maxwell page in my absence. Could you do me a favour? I see that Maxwell's quote is allowed to speak for itself, which is not a bad solution. The only problem is the link within the quote to the Theory of Evolution page. That link means that the quote is not really allowed to speak for itself at all. The whole dispute was over the meaning of the phrase "theory of evolution". By linking it you have effectively changed the quote and nominated a particular meaning. Could you remove the link? I also suggest that the creationist category be removed in light of the way the discussion has gone (but, baby steps I suppose). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Maxwell&diff=96387&oldid=96110] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ed do ''you'' see any reason why the creationist category should continue to be applied? There don't appear to be any sources indicating a belief in the biblical creation (and its a bit hard to add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> to a category). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't care one way or the other. But see my latest change to [[Creationism]] and then comment here again, would you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Creationism is the belief that the Earth and everything in it was created by [[God]] or some other supreme being.''
::: From this, would it be reasonable to say that ''every'' religious scientist is a creationist? You have Steven Hawking saying "You still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question" (Black Holes and Baby Universes, p. 159) and "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God." on page 193 of A Brief History of Time. I would be willing to bet that you would even have a few Indian scientists who believe that Brahma created the world - would you classify them as Creationists? I am certain you wouldn't be able to put the later in any of the groups defined at [[Creationism#Creationist categories]].
::: If you are going to have the category of Creationists, then it should be reserved for individuals who have expressed more than a belief in a creator (and thus a creation) but that they are advocates of creation and write about it or have spoken about it. Otherwise, every single biography here would likely have such a category which would make it nearly identical to the union of "Creationist" and "Atheist", and that isn't that helpful at all. It would make more sense to add the category of Creationist to [[Zach Johnson]], [[St. Augustine]] and [[Martin Luther]] who has said more about creation than James Maxwell has. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sounds like you've got a handle on this. Would you like to take charge of [[:Category:Creationists]] then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Nope. I don't know the where abouts to find out the philosophical leanings of various Christian writers (or Jewish writers? or Islamic writers (they've got essentially the same creation story)?). It is much easier to find the negation - "this person wrote nothing about creation" than trying to dig through everything published about [[Zach Johnson]] to see if he did say anything about creation. This is much better left up to the experts on the various fields who is writing about the person. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*This has already been addressed by Andy. Why is it still being discussed?--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: As it stands, if you are to include James Maxwell as a creationist, you will need to include nearly every single person in the biography category (including Steven Hawking) as a creationist. This makes the category useless for the purpose of finding people who have material that is actually pro-creationism. I cannot find any material written by James Maxwell that shows that he supports a biblical view of the creation of the universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::<s>Have you reviewed my change to the intro of [[Creationism]]?</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=96383&oldid=95721 (see diff here)] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I guess Andy disagrees with you, Mtur. This isn't a Democracy on policy issues. You can now run off and report more "chilling" sarcasm. Once something like this has been addressed from the "top" is there a ''good'' reason people will not let it go? I don't consider rendering yet another added category useless as a "good" reason. And Andy has already told all of you directly, there isn't any evidence he wasn't a Creationist. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Is absence of evidence of not a Creationist to be taken as evidence that he was a Creationist? Of the 148 articles (lacking many) in currently in Category:biographies (which is already mentioned as being too large), how many would be labeled with Creationist if that was the case? Would this be any more useful than Category:biographies itself? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Your problem is, mistaking my own opinion for that of Andy's. My job, part of it, is to uphold his thoughts and wishes. Like I keep saying, he addressed this issue. Isn't that the "deciding" factor now? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you seem to have lost sight of the task. Articles should be factual. If Aschlafly is wrong then the article should be changed. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Not in someone else's house, Horace. That would be impolite. I am sure we agree far more than disagree, however since the more Wiki of you continue to act as if this is Wikipedia, or other Wiki's you have used, and treat everyone here like they are "Conservative", there will be little progress, and I assume that is what you, among others, want. Certainly my own experiences show me that. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Anti-evolutionist? ===
Is someone who is against Social Darwinism also an anti-evolutionist? How do you classify an astronomer who accepts stellar evolution but not biological evolution? Maxwell was saying that '''molecules''' do not evolve. That has nothing to do with biology. Any attempt to mix biological evolution and what Maxwell said is misleading. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Creationist? ===
There are no writings of Maxwell that anyone can cite that indicate that Maxwell believed in the creation of the universe as specified in the Bible. Attempting to make a creationist category with the assumption that no evidence to the contrary is enough for inclusion leads to a bloated category that lacks any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence. That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army. The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, Andy never said anything about the <nowki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag. He spoke about the quote, which is still there. Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I think whenever any Sysop decides upon his own, or in consultation with users, to reverse any action by another Sysop, there isn't any misunderstanding, other than a total lack of respect. I think whenever any small group of users decides, on their own, to move categories or disambiguation pages, it shows an elitist and disrespectful attitude, as well. Such actions are no different, logically, than the high-handed attitude some of you complain about, in talking of the actions of a "certain Sysop", in my humble opinion. You gentlemen cannot have your cake, and eat it to, you know. Either the little clique of technocrats school the rest of us, or stop your unilateral actions without discussing it fully, and in public. Yes, this means whatever is considered "housekeeping" chores as well. Otherwise we are indeed acting elitist and self-centered, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Well I'm glad your up for a discussion. I really think that Mtur put the position well above under the headings "Anti-evolutionist" and "Creationist". Could you answer those points? I find it difficult to understand why either of those tags ought to apply to Maxwell (and I imagine Maxwell would too). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You finding something difficult to understand, isn't the point. Respect is. So long as there are a few of you who actually believe you are right, and everyone else is totally wrong, and defend your arbitrary unilateral small clique actions that way, how can anyone feel welcome here, anymore than your favorite Sysop makes people feel? My guess is that you guys are so caught up in your own feelings about Conservative, you fail to realize just how unwelcoming and hostile you all appear to be. I can understand that, but I have certainly gone out of my way, more so than other Sysop's have, to arrive at some accommodation. At every turn I have been marginalized. Now, you reap what you've sown. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Look, I am just trying to engage in the core business here. I know you don't much like me and I know why. Could we have a go at sorting this issue out? I was saying that I was glad you were willing to discuss it. Let's discuss it. Why do you say he should be labelled a creationist? (or an anti-evolutionist for that matter)? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I am sorry if you actually think I dislike you, Horace, I am sure Ed or others would tell you that isn't true. You know how to reach me, and until today, could also be reached on IRC, but I am done trying to meet people half way, because I was never afforded that. If some here want to revel in their superior Wiki skills, they can do so. I guess without sharing information it makes them feel superior, because I know whenever I haven't understood their intentions, I was called names, and worse. It is enough for me that Andy says there isn't anything to support ''not'' calling him a Creationist. Since it is his place, and the matter, aside from the disrespect, a small matter in the order of the Univserse, I see no reason to do everything to the article but claim Andy is wrong, to strip it of that possibility. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: TK, I've never dealt with you before. I've never posted about the other sysop you're talking about. I'm not part of any cabal or clique. So, will you please read what I'm saying? Andy never said anything about the category tag. The category tag isn't supported by the facts which have been offered. I believe the editor who initially put it in place now agrees with that. Can you please just deal with the issues at hand? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*The editor who put it in place has told me he now doesn't see a reason to remove it. One man's facts are another man's fiction. I have no "facts" to prove to me Jesus was indeed the son of God. But I believe it as much as I know who my parents are. Maxwell said:

<blockquote>
"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural."
</blockquote>

It is clear to me, from that sentence, he is saying he doesn't believe in Evolution. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Where did Ed Poor say that he sees no reason to remove it? 2. conservapedia rules require citations, not just belief. 3. the quote is talking about evolution of molecules, not about biological evolution. 4. even if he doesn't believe in biological evolution, that doesn't make him a creationist under the definition here as it existed when the category was first put in place. 5. the current definition of 'creationism' is so loose as to be almost meaningless, and I expect it to be reverted sometime soon. Even if 1-4 don't convince you, will you at least agree to remove the category if and when the definition of creationism reverts to one claiming a belief in a literal reading of the Bible? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I clearly think that paragraph is "proof". I will now, since none of you like to cooperate, refer the article on "Creationism" to the Students to decide as well, so will be locking it. As for Ed, ask him. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, I thought discussion of this page belong on this talk page. Was I mistaken about that? I don't see how I've done anything but cooperate. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, I guess you wouldn't, given the number of times Andy and others, including me, said that sentence was "proof" for us. Who are you, any of you, to say your read is more valid? I can see from the insistence of others here, there cannot be any accommodation, because some of you insist only your interpretation is correct. So, I guess the Student Panel will decide. And, until people start to accommodate, and respect religious opinion, they will have to keep on deciding. Doesn't bother me in the least. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I've explained how I read the quote and why I think it means what I think it means. Neither you nor Andy has done so despite repeated requests. In your reading, why does he talk about molecules? And how am I not respecting your religious opinion? Does your religion tell you that Maxwell was a creationist? -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Maxwell clearly states molecules do not change, among other things. I think to an open-minded person, the statement stands on its own, as his rejection of Darwinism/Evolution. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you, now we're getting somewhere. What in the quote leads you to the "among other things"? That is, where does he talk about evolution of anything other than molecules? Or do you believe that Darwinism includes evolution of molecules? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't aware that one could pick and choose among what would evolve and what wouldn't, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Sure you can. Darwin's theory and its successors (which have been important enough to generally be what's meant by just "the theory of evolution") have to do with the evolution of living things from earlier living things. You could also have theories of planetary evolution or of political evolution or weather evolution or cultural evolution, for example. By my reading, Maxwell is denying that a valid theory of molecular evolution can be created. So now: what in the quote leads you to the "among other things"? Or do you really believe that Darwin's theory claims to account for how molecules themselves evolve? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 02:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Those were serious questions, TK, and I'd like serious answers. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 13:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*You do understand, Jtl, I am not at your personal call? Forgive me, life sometimes intervenes. I will re-state for you, I think the quote stands on its own, enough to provide an opening, a wide one, big enough to preclude anyone saying he believed in Evolution, and a bigger opening to say he was a Creationist, or maybe even a ID person. I question why you are so intent to ram your ideas through, contrary to what Andy and I have said.......--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It, it would be a great help, if you paid attention here, and responded to questions. Restating doesn't answer the question. What part of the quote makes you think he's talking about anything other than evolution-of-molecules? Alternately, do you actually believe that Darwinian evolution includes evolution of molecules? Those seem like simple questions to me; the second one is even a yes/no. Can I have answers, pretty pretty please? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 16:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you have any indication that he did not believe in biological evolution? He only mentions molecules in the quote. Do you have any work that shows he believed in Creation as specified in the Bible? If not, then almost every single biography should be labeled as a Creationist at which point it becomes meaningless. I would be happy to add 150+ Category:Creationist tags to every single one of the biographies that is not a person who is an atheist. The level of evidence for adding such a tag should be more than just saying "creation" or "a theory of evolution cannot be applied to <nowiki>{something not biological}</nowiki>". Lacking this, it is devoid of any educational value. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Odd, according to whom? Oh, yes, YOU! Andy and I disagree. But I can understand your insistence that you and Jtl are the ones seeing it "correctly", and perhaps you think Andy and I are merely "confused"? Thinking clouded out of some Bible-thumping zeal? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strictly historical disclaimer needed. ==

Which I provided. Reverting. Deal with it. Debate it if you don't like it but don't mindlessly revert/protect.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Oh, Christ TK! Locking because you're too afraid to talk about it? Go ahead and lock your talk page, now, too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Outsider's (in that I haven't participated in either editing this article or previous discussion) -- the 'liberal', 'atheist', 'elitist' (add whatever other labels you'd like) people are trying to ''prevent y'all from looking like fools''. Y'all keep insisting on it, which is why this wiki is doomed to failure. But thanks for providing a lot of hours of entertainment at your willful misreading of anything the slightest bit ambiguous (and that's generous, given the clarity of what Maxwell was talking about in his quote) to support something for which there is no rational support, it being inherently irrational (ie, Creationism, which is a factual claim, not an insult -- belief despite no physical evidence is inherently irrational, in a narrow definition of the term). [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 16:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*No, I locked it because I am against people like you, Ames, stating an absolute: "Deal with it!" It is you, and the others who feel they are "elite" who are going to deal with it. MyaR, looking like fools to Secularists isn't something new to Christians, we have been seen as buffoons often. It says something about other people, who come to a Christian and Conservative site, and keep trying to "save us" from our ways. It doesn't shake our faith. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Um, I think you missed my point -- it's a reading-comprehension foolishness, not a belief one. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 16:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

One - stop using tab characters. Two - don't lock and avoid debate on an issue in which the facts are clearly in my favor. You cannot disprove the disclaimer I added - "Maxwell was not a biologist, ToE wasn't a full scientific theory at that point" - so why delete them?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''My opinion is that Maxwell is a creationist. I don't care if he's categorized that way or not. I leave that decision to you, sir.
--Ed Poor 16:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)'''
</blockquote>
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Opinions, especially "poor" ones (pun intended), rarely go to the facts. If you want, keep the category and keep the disclaimer, too. Just the disclaimer needs to be there, or it is simply factually incorrect.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't make one bit of difference, since you "elites" eliminated the category, by removing all that was in there.....good show...good intellectual non-freedom. Just like the removal of the archives in abuse. Manipulations of this Wiki by users who will not share information, and seek to conceal by it is ideological censorship. A reckoning is coming soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you *threatening* me?! Wow. I refuse to be threatened by someone who misspells "manipulation." But I didn't delete the "creationist" category, and I'm happy to let that stay. I just hope you don't censor the facts as to the state of the evolutionary theory at the point that Maxwell made those comments.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*You manipulated by removing all other articles from the category. You are bankrupt in thought and deed to need to insult and marginilize others by pointing out spell checker errors, Ames. The reckoning will come from the Students, not me, otherwise I am sure Andy would have removed you long ago. Enjoy your "elite" status with the others. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T21:01:32Z

Teresita: /* Fairness */

=Draft=
{{Talk:Political spectrum/usage}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/definitions}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/origin}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/history}}

RedBlue wrote: ''Other periods would be helpful too... but this is a start...''

{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}

==References==
<references/>

=Discussion=

==Proposed section headings==

*Definition
*Origin
*Contemporary US usage
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

==Alternative section headings==

*Contemporary US usage
*Origin
*Definition in political science
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

In spite of all the argument, it seems we mostly agree what to put in those sections.
What's been so controversial is which aspects to emphasize. So a good arrangement of sections
would be very useful. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

----
*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is just more theory; piling on more theory ontop of theory doesn't really help to clarify anything, unless of course you properly disclaim it as such. We all were taught this junk by the [[Democrat#Economic_policy|NEA]]; 260 million Russian were taught the glories of [[Marxism]] in public schools for 70 years, as contiues in China, North Korea and Cuba. Let's do an empirical survey and compare American schools and test scores with former Soviet, Chinese, North Korean and Cuban to see how they rank. Then we'll investigate if there's any validity whatsoever to the statement that because you learned it school, therefore it must be true.

:There is actually a key to understanding this theory, which helps make sense of it. But none of the advocates of perpetuating these myths have discussed it yet--which implies advocates of the theory themselves know little of its origin, use, meaning, or purpose. So I'll just remain silent on that aspect until somebody actually raises it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does one "disabuse" an abstract term, which is incapable of thinking and therefore incapable of having misconceptions of which it needs to be "disabused?"

:The origins of the meaning of the word "right" and whether or not it was associated with "titled nobility" have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And those differences between the manner in which Europe defines "right wing" and the manner in which the United States define "right wing" are not so great that anyone either on this side of the Atlantic or the other, now or in the 1930s, had any disagreement about the Nazis being "right wing."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page, and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

::Couldn't agree more; I count [[User:Redblue]] having made 20 edits to [[Political spectrum]] mainspace, 9 edits to [[Leftist]], and 9 edits to [[Rightist]], and where are we any closer to any definitions than before any of these three pages were started? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

::OK. So I am challanging the veracity of the spectrum theory; does that me make leftist? Others claim they should be accepted-- even without defining them--because it's traditional and they were taught it in high school; does that make them rightists? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

::I agree with all of this. What I disagree with is using the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as the starting point of classification. It may have some comparative value, but what usually happens is a new group comes on stage--take [[Wahhabism]] for example--nobody knows what it is, so somebody defines it is "rightist", i.e. bad guys, and then whatever minor embarassing details need to be trimmed can be conveniently ignored later. The case of Wahhabism is one in particular I think we should examine in addition to the National Socialist, because both are very revealing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

::One word can clarify all this--'''theory'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rob's complaint should be turned into a '''description''' of a well-sourced scholar view, like this:
:*According to the Confoundatarian Party, all political spectrums are illegitimate because they wind up being used pigeonhole persons and groups with false stereotypes.
:Any flaws in a left-center-right [[model]] should be noted, but not as an opinion of one CP editor - rather, attributed to a verifiable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, read my comments, please!! All I'm asking for is a '''definition''' of what's the difference between left and right. There's nothing wrong with what your old version says, only what it '''doesnt''' say: it doesnt define why some things are called left and some are called right. I provided a very simple definition, and backed it up with two sources. How can you
revert to an unsourced version without the most basic information? Meanwhile you deleted a lot of other people's contributions too... I will revert back (just once, you're the editor).

:I read that comment <grin>. It's like saying all I want for Christmas is "peace on earth, good will to men". You forget to mention a chicken in every pot and a [[perpetual motion]] machine. </grin>

:::Nonsense, Ed, it's nothing of the kind. The definition of left and right I cited can be found in Merriam Webster's Ninth. There's nothing so abstract and subjective about it that it's comparable to the platitudes you've cited. The only reason some here are upset about it is because they want a definition that would put Hitler on the left with Stalin. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF- what does MW say? I tried looking up 'political spectrum' in MW online and found nothing. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the political usage of the term "right" (Under "R," defintion 2.8) as "individuals sometimes expressing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order." That same source defines the political usage of the term "left" (Under "L", definition 2.3) "those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics and usu advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics "''
::::::This definition describes both Adolf Hitler & Osama bin Laden as lefists pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Only if you carefully ignore the part about the left "overthrowing the established order" and the right "favoring traditional attitudes and practices." Both Osama bin Laden and Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices. That puts them soldily in "the right." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Not so my friend; Hitler wanted to "overthrow the established order", i.e. the Versailles Treaty. "Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices"; when was [[genocide]] as "traditional practice"? And the case of bin Laden I think we can get into more specifically as well, but not quite yet... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." And the only thing really new about the Third Reich's genocide was the modern technology and record keeping [[Heinrich Himmler]] brought to it. See the article on [[Third Reich]] for a detailed discussion of Hitler's desire to return Germany to what it was before women and Jews had gained more rights and art had moved beyond the romanticism Hitler preferred.

:::::::::I look forward with interest to seeing what definitions you're going to mangle and what historical facts you'll get thuddingly wrong in trying to pass Bin Laden off as a "leftist." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::''Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." ''
::::::::::Well my friend, you can't make this statement because we haven't properly defined the term, "right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Robs, Sure I can. The terms "right" and "left' have been defined for years, their definitions are readily available in most dictionaries, and those definitions have ben used in regard to the Third Reich for over seven decades by both liberals and conservatives. Your attemps to pretend otherwise is as silly as your attempt to redraw the timeline for the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, enough joking around. Seriously, the problem is that no one can agree on the definitions. This article makes our creationism and evolution articles look simple (and I've reserved several even '''more contentious''' subjects for a later date - don't ask).

:Could we please '''list''' the various definitions someplace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, listing would be great. ESPECIALLY if people provide some references for their defs. Let me know if you lose my refs in all the editing/reediting. By the way, good job. I assume the fact that there is more silence now means people agree with most of the material in the draft sections... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ohh...yah...I see; the poltical spectrum theory is a theory that describes politcal views but when we have real life illustrations, it doesn't apply. Yes, now we understand. And it makes absolute perfect sense, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sections==

We need to divide the article into sections, to avoid wasting time on edit conflicts. There are two ways to do this. The easy way requires an update to MediaWiki, so I'm going to do this the hard way. Please bear with me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for creating sections, as long as this allows actually putting some information in this page about how political scientists and tradition define the political spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Some useful sections could include "definition", "origin", "contemporary US usage", "history", and "political movements".
And "criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint" --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, here they are:
:*[[/definition]]
:*[[/origin]]
:*[[/usage]]
:*[[/history]]
:*[[/movements]]
:I'll set these up as unprotected templates that appear at the head of this talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning. --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)'''
</blockquote>

*I am glad this was fully discussed, and all parties who wanted to, have given their comments, ''in the few minutes'' since you suggested it, Ed. Thanks for allowing absolutely no input, or responding to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]

Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 other

Yes:
# Gonna assume this gap is for people to fill! It's not just unfair, its an abuse of privilege! Sysop's who use their powers in such a way should have their powers removed! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Yes (to maintain count, rest of comments are being backed out by commentatrix) [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
#*We need to find a way to agree. I suggest [[Conservapedia:planning|planning]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Protection is for preventing vandalism, not enforcing content. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Of course it is unfair. There's some question about this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Other: ''Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning.'' --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Unanimous? Sorry to break it to you Little Kings...you ain't the majority around here Anything produced will give full faith and credit to the Conservative side and the Christian side. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nothing wrong with that, TK -- so long as you do no violence to the truth while presenting the conservative side. Unfortunately trying to pass Hitler off as a leftist and implying that Henry Luce would have fired reporters for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" does violence to the truth, whether the writer is deliberately misrepresenting things or is just saying what he or she would LIKE to be true without going through the sordid process of actually READING A BOOK OR TWO on the subject at hand. On a website that is supposed to be "educational" those kind of "errors" should be intoleratable to anyone no matter what their political persuasion. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Sorry, PF, that is where you are wrong. This site is not supposed to conform to SCIENCE, secular science. I know the Students hate seeing everything here secularized beyond any reason. I have two undergrad degrees, one post, working towards my second. I read lots of books, btw, so sorry if the thinking is "out there", beyond your ability to understand. Giving full faith and credit to Christian ideas, does, however, sometimes take a leap of faith, something secularists can't do. With prayer, I am sure you will find the strength/ability to understand. Your continued put-downs are not appreciated by most here, I have heard from over a dozen since last night, thanking me, saying they are glad someone is standing up to tyrants, aside from Conservative, intent on ramming secular/liberal content down their throats. I suggest you try harder to live up to the ideals of this site. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether or not Hitler was a right winger and whether or not Henry Luce would have fired someone for saying so is not a matter of "science" or "religion." It's a matter of fact and a matter of having a decent regard for the truth. Telling young people that the Nazis were leftists and that conservatives of that era like Henry Luce would have agreed with such nonsense is untrue. If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject before "teaching" students about it. If the person uttering this untruth knows better, they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I am sorry and sad if postulating heresy makes you uneasy, or that you latch on to your misinterpretations to try and denigrate, marginalize and insult those you disagree with. You might want to ask yourself why you are so hostile to anyone suggesting alternatives to what you have preconceived notions about.....and I am not talking about stating that the Nazi's were leftists, though in matters of governance they indeed were, in model and form. Do you lack any form of intellectual openness to examine the differences between what intellectuals said in the 1930's and and the reality of their actual administration of government as opposed to their political thoughts? All I see above, posted by others in the past six hours or so, is a couple of people wanting to "bang out" a page, based on their preconceived notions, and excluding all others who might dare to suggest others topics. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::PF's a guy who's views we need to study and reflect upon. A true Wikipedian in that regard, his views are unchanging and undetered by facts. For example, on the KKK page I laid out two plausible courses for development of that article [[Talk:Ku Klux Klan#Moving forward]]. PF opted to pursue the first of these two. What followed was comical [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93627][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93644][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93711] in the vein of the a classic POV nuclear arms race. This can't be anything other than frustrating to those who insist upon this kind of an approach. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Food for thought. I wonder why PF and Ed Poor want this "disposed of", rammed down everyone's throats so quickly? Did someone start a clock I am unaware of? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed's raised some good points, and we need some time to digest them. My own view is this page should be moved to [[Political spectrum theory]] and stood side by side with [[Theory of Evolution]]. Both date roughly from the same era, both have been misapplied in American public schools for more than century, and the resolution of both ultimately is same--they are only theories that each and every one of us individually have the freedom to embrace or reject. But to pass off either as an unchallengeable doctrinal truth just makes no sense anymore in the modern world. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seems as if my friend, Ed, has taken a turn, and become a pupeteer, and only insterested in moving production. Being from TV, I guess that is understandable, LOL! It does make me sad, because I thought we got along well, here and on the phone. RobS, would you look at the list "Conservative" put on my talk page, and perhaps consider taking one of the topics? I can agree with you RobS about moving it now....you've changed my mind. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:Do we take a poll on the move or does WP:BOLD apply? On the list, I'm gonna try & weasel out; I can't pretend any knowledge on the scientific and technical stuff, the [[National Right to Life Committee]] is interesting but I'm afraid it might give the impression I'm a partisan or biased editor (go ahead, laugh). Truth betold, I prefer historical subjects cause there's usually little of the guessing game left and most if not all the cards are finally laid on the table. I only get involved in contemporary stuff when I'm bored, tired, or throwing a change-up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I just am tired of people ramming junk through, at flank speed, without allowing or wanting additional input. I just don't see the rush, haven't been informed of a need for it, and whenever two people, mostly, are engaged in a talk page, and a question is proffered, and the solution/answer follows by three minutes, it makes me uneasy. It is akin to being outflanked with Parliamentary rules at a meeting. One wonders what the underlying motive is to cut things off, and do things a certain way.......and why some have such a venomous reaction to ideas.......--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Puppetry is not necessarily a television thing, but I did take unilateral action here. If you want something different, go ahead. I just thought have individually editable sections might break the deadlock. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-04-10T18:59:05Z

Teresita: /* Be Very Afraid */

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. People do go to hell and that at least we should fear as a tool of God's justice.

Double Edge
* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Vatican City

2007-04-10T18:51:13Z

Teresita:

The '''State of the Vatican City''' or simply the '''Vatican City''' is an independent state. The head of state and ruler is the Bishop of Rome — the [[Pope]], and the highest state functionaries are all clergymen of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].
The Vatican City houses the Government of the Roman Catholic Church and is surrounded by the city of [[Rome]].
Until 1871 the Pope held civil power over a considerable territory, called the [[Papal States]]. This land was made a part of [[Italy]] during the unification of 1871. By the Treaty of the Lateran in 1929, Italy restored the Pope's temporal, or civil, power within the confines of Vatican City, which totals 108.7 acres in area.

[[Image:vatican-city.jpg]]

The State of the Vatican City has its own [[Euro]] coins and [[postage stamp]]s and postal service. Security is provided by the Pontifical Swiss Guard.

A few critics have pointed out that the Vatican City has one of the highest crime rates in the world.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm] However, this may have something to do with Vatican City's population, which is much smaller than any country, at 778.
[[Category:European Countries]]

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T18:47:08Z

Teresita: /* Fairness */

=Draft=
{{Talk:Political spectrum/usage}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/definitions}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/origin}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/history}}

RedBlue wrote: ''Other periods would be helpful too... but this is a start...''

{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}

==References==
<references/>

=Discussion=

==Proposed section headings==

*Definition
*Origin
*Contemporary US usage
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

==Alternative section headings==

*Contemporary US usage
*Origin
*Definition in political science
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

In spite of all the argument, it seems we mostly agree what to put in those sections.
What's been so controversial is which aspects to emphasize. So a good arrangement of sections
would be very useful. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

----
*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does one "disabuse" an abstract term, which is incapable of thinking and therefore incapable of having misconceptions of which it needs to be "disabused?"

:The origins of the meaning of the word "right" and whether or not it was associated with "titled nobility" have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And those differences between the manner in which Europe defines "right wing" and the manner in which the United States define "right wing" are not so great that anyone either on this side of the Atlantic or the other, now or in the 1930s, had any disagreement about the Nazis being "right wing."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page, and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

::Couldn't agree more; I count [[User:Redblue]] having made 20 edits to [[Political spectrum]] mainspace, 9 edits to [[Leftist]], and 9 edits to [[Rightist]], and where are we any closer to any definitions than before any of these three pages were started? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

::OK. So I am challanging the veracity of the spectrum theory; does that me make leftist? Others claim they should be accepted-- even without defining them--because it's traditional and they were taught it in high school; does that make them rightists? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

::I agree with all of this. What I disagree with is using the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as the starting point of classification. It may have some comparative value, but what usually happens is a new group comes on stage--take [[Wahhabism]] for example--nobody knows what it is, so somebody defines it is "rightist", i.e. bad guys, and then whatever minor embarassing details need to be trimmed can be conveniently ignored later. The case of Wahhabism is one in particular I think we should examine in addition to the National Socialist, because both are very revealing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

::One word can clarify all this--'''theory'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rob's complaint should be turned into a '''description''' of a well-sourced scholar view, like this:
:*According to the Confoundatarian Party, all political spectrums are illegitimate because they wind up being used pigeonhole persons and groups with false stereotypes.
:Any flaws in a left-center-right [[model]] should be noted, but not as an opinion of one CP editor - rather, attributed to a verifiable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, read my comments, please!! All I'm asking for is a '''definition''' of what's the difference between left and right. There's nothing wrong with what your old version says, only what it '''doesnt''' say: it doesnt define why some things are called left and some are called right. I provided a very simple definition, and backed it up with two sources. How can you
revert to an unsourced version without the most basic information? Meanwhile you deleted a lot of other people's contributions too... I will revert back (just once, you're the editor).

:I read that comment <grin>. It's like saying all I want for Christmas is "peace on earth, good will to men". You forget to mention a chicken in every pot and a [[perpetual motion]] machine. </grin>

:::Nonsense, Ed, it's nothing of the kind. The definition of left and right I cited can be found in Merriam Webster's Ninth. There's nothing so abstract and subjective about it that it's comparable to the platitudes you've cited. The only reason some here are upset about it is because they want a definition that would put Hitler on the left with Stalin. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF- what does MW say? I tried looking up 'political spectrum' in MW online and found nothing. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the political usage of the term "right" (Under "R," defintion 2.8) as "individuals sometimes expressing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order." That same source defines the political usage of the term "left" (Under "L", definition 2.3) "those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics and usu advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics "''
::::::This definition describes both Adolf Hitler & Osama bin Laden as lefists pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Only if you carefully ignore the part about the left "overthrowing the established order" and the right "favoring traditional attitudes and practices." Both Osama bin Laden and Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices. That puts them soldily in "the right." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Not so my friend; Hitler wanted to "overthrow the established order", i.e. the Versailles Treaty. "Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices"; when was [[genocide]] as "traditional practice"? And the case of bin Laden I think we can get into more specifically as well, but not quite yet... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." And the only thing really new about the Third Reich's genocide was the modern technology and record keeping [[Heinrich Himmler]] brought to it. See the article on [[Third Reich]] for a detailed discussion of Hitler's desire to return Germany to what it was before women and Jews had gained more rights and art had moved beyond the romanticism Hitler preferred.

:::::::::I look forward with interest to seeing what definitions you're going to mangle and what historical facts you'll get thuddingly wrong in trying to pass Bin Laden off as a "leftist." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::''Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." ''
::::::::::Well my friend, you can't make this statement because we haven't properly defined the term, "right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Robs, Sure I can. The terms "right" and "left' have been defined for years, their definitions are readily available in most dictionaries, and those definitions have ben used in regard to the Third Reich for over seven decades by both liberals and conservatives. Your attemps to pretend otherwise is as silly as your attempt to redraw the timeline for the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, enough joking around. Seriously, the problem is that no one can agree on the definitions. This article makes our creationism and evolution articles look simple (and I've reserved several even '''more contentious''' subjects for a later date - don't ask).

:Could we please '''list''' the various definitions someplace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, listing would be great. ESPECIALLY if people provide some references for their defs. Let me know if you lose my refs in all the editing/reediting. By the way, good job. I assume the fact that there is more silence now means people agree with most of the material in the draft sections... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ohh...yah...I see; the poltical spectrum theory is a theory that describes politcal views but when we have real life illustrations, it doesn't apply. Yes, now we understand. And it makes absolute perfect sense, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sections==

We need to divide the article into sections, to avoid wasting time on edit conflicts. There are two ways to do this. The easy way requires an update to MediaWiki, so I'm going to do this the hard way. Please bear with me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for creating sections, as long as this allows actually putting some information in this page about how political scientists and tradition define the political spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Some useful sections could include "definition", "origin", "contemporary US usage", "history", and "political movements".
And "criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint" --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, here they are:
:*[[/definition]]
:*[[/origin]]
:*[[/usage]]
:*[[/history]]
:*[[/movements]]
:I'll set these up as unprotected templates that appear at the head of this talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]

Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 other

Yes:
# Gonna assume this gap is for people to fill! It's not just unfair, its an abuse of privilege! Sysop's who use their powers in such a way should have their powers removed! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Yes, I'm seeing this now with [[Young Earth Creationism]] which is currently being [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811 edited by the protecting sysop while it is locked down]. What this means is that if you get ops, you can turn any portion of Conservapedia into your own personal blog and no one can do anything about it. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#** PS, Ed, the revert you just did of my work on this article was the last straw. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
#*We need to find a way to agree. I suggest [[Conservapedia:planning|planning]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Protection is for preventing vandalism, not enforcing content. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Of course it is unfair. There's some question about this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Other: ''Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning.'' --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Unanimous? Sorry to break it to you Little Kings...you ain't the majority around here Anything produced will give full faith and credit to the Conservative side and the Christian side. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:As I suspected, it is a Conservative Christian view that articles can be locked down to give the protecting sysop an advantage in an editing situation. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-04-10T18:43:11Z

Teresita: /* Offensive manner */

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-04-10T18:41:08Z

Teresita: /* "Comedic" */

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-04-10T18:40:51Z

Teresita: /* "Comedic" */

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Date of creation

2007-04-10T18:36:21Z

Teresita: /* Calculated dates */

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from Adam to Abraham, listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> It should be noted, however, that Barr also wrote a book opposing biblical inerrancy. [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1786]

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 22]], [[4004]] BC.<ref>The Annals of the World, by James Ussher.</ref> However, only the year was based on the Biblical ages; the date and time were based on other considerations. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date. Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

But such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition (to which the Old Testament of course belongs) reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

Based mainly on geological dating methods, however, secular scientific research generally dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago.

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

Michael Savage

2007-04-10T14:57:53Z

Teresita: added source

'''Michael Savage''' is a conservative talk show host. His real name is Michael Alan Wiener. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He is affectionately known as "Dr. Savage" because he holds a Ph.D.

=== References ===

<references />

Talk:Opposition to elective abortion

2007-04-10T14:22:08Z

Teresita: New page: Gay and lesbian couples in Florida who wish to adopt unwanted babies are turned away by statute. ~~~~

Gay and lesbian couples in Florida who wish to adopt unwanted babies are turned away by statute. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-04-10T13:48:24Z

Teresita: /* Moved by her Christian faith */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Moved by her Christian faith ==

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as [[Jesus]] said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who '''''is''''' misled '''''feels''''' misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, opposing special legal rights group is not "hate" and does not mean one supports discrimination against that group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, opposing equal rights is hate.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one am doubtful Bryant was motivated by any benevolent urge to "soul-save" when she was campaigning against homosexuality. One need only look at her own words:

- "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children."
- "I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother, I must protect my children from their evil influence."

To me, it seems as though Bryant was more concerned about "protecting" children than saving anyone's soul. And for that matter, I think this article is a little heavy on the "gays-and-liberal-media-ruined-her-career" rhetoric. I think there also needs to be a discussion of how even fellow Christians abandoned Bryant when she became divorced. That lack of support was just as vital to her fall from grace as the gay rights movement she unintentionally helped revive.--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:The divorce of parents does far more harm to children than whether or not two gals get hitched somewhere. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Category==
Since this page is locked, can someone please add [[Category|Women]] (the category) to it? Thanks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hatred is bad ==

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"'''Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa."'''
Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I think the video has a date, no?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== early? ==
In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The [[Homosexual Agenda]] is a fairly recent event, of which I believe it is fair to say that Bryant was an early opponent. I remember reading that she was also a segregationist - I would research this more but the article is currently locked so I won't be able to add anything until this changes. Is there any way a lock can be imposed only for non-registered users? [[User:ATB|ATB]] 21:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Gee, I don't know. Think maybe she was a member of the KKK? Really, that's ridiculous to try to smear someone because you disagree with her position on the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I quite agree with her position on the homosexual agenda, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments in any other fashion. I was simply mentioning that it might be notable - especially on this socially conservative encyclopedia - to make note of her pro-white positions. Some preliminary research garnered a 70s article which stated that "in her interpretation of the Bible, Jews, Moslems, Pygmies and Eskimos are going to hell." This isn't Wikipedia; we can say what we want. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 23:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Natural Consequences of Free Speech on the Free Market ==

When the Dixie Chicks - up to that point fairly popular country singers - foolishly angered one of their largest fan bases by criticizing President Bush, they were summarily "fired" by many people. It is perfectly all right for anyone to refuse to continue giving money to an entertainer who, for whatever reason, no longer entertains them. 
So when a perfectly legal - and perfectly justified - boycott was called "censorship" by those who thought Natalie Maines and crew were being treated unfairly, I found the situation quite laughable. In contrast to the Chicks' refusal to play by the rules of the entertainment market (please the fans), other singers and entertainers who may have controversial political views have remained silent. Others have even gained commercial success by mirroring the views of their target audience (for instance, Toby Keith). The Dixie Chicks suffered the natural consequences of Natalie's big mouth, and have no one but themselves to blame for failing to recognize demographic facts about their fan base. 
In the case of Anita Bryant, we similarly saw a fairly popular singer take on a view that is and was by all accounts controversial. She has, however, no right to my money, or your money, unless you or I are satisfied with her product. So she spoke her mind, and was then predictably lambasted by the media and many sectors of the public. She had every right to do so, and it was certainly very rude of protesters to violate her person by assault via pie. But she has no right to any success, or money, unless she pleases those who will give it to her. Her only real complaint could be that a company that pulls sponsorship might be making a bad business decision: but so what? It is theirs to make, and who is she to criticize the autonomous decision of a company that must answer to the public's economic decisions? If a sponsor predicts that the controversy will hurt sales, why ought they ''not'' respond by distancing themselves from it? Their duties are to their shareholders, not to Ms. Bryant or her political/religious/moral views. 
That's the way the free market works. Bryant may be right or wrong (I myself am disinclined to agree with many of her stated views), but she is merely an entertainer-turned-social-activist, like so many Hollywood stars. I'm not in the slightest concerned by what Madonna, or Anita Bryant, think about a very complicated moral question.--[[User:Philosophe|Philosophe]] 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-04-10T13:39:20Z

Teresita:

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2007-04-10T13:37:29Z

Teresita:

Is it not the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf (Fox)? Edwards fears Fox because they hufffed and puffed. Then Obama fears Fox when he huffed and puffed. Hillary fears Fox so she ran with the other pigs. America faces serious challenges in the future. Can we afford leaders that are afraid to confront issues? What about confronting our enemies?

To me, it is a hell of a clue on how they would lead, lead America to disaster. Remember General Pace calling homosexuality immorral? I know for sure Hillary and Barack were like deer in headlights, afraid, very afraid to answer. Why trust Americas leadership to people that only want to tow the line for liberals only, not the rest of America?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 08:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not solely a Democratic problem. McCain refused to attend CPAC. About the only time we hear from Cheney is on El Rushbo. One might even call running from Fox the television equivelent of protecting an article to preserve one's edits, which often happens on a certain conservative wiki that I know. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-04-10T13:32:39Z

Teresita: /* Are there any Wikipedia editors here? */

{{protected|TK}}
== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

United States Secretary of State

2007-04-10T13:25:27Z

Teresita: I didn't like this "he or she" business, we don't use that for Secretary of Defense!

''This article refers to the '''United States Secretary of State'''. For the '''Secretary of State''' for the state governments, go to [[Secretary of State (U.S. state government)]]''

The '''United States Secretary of State''' is the head of the U.S. [[Department of State]]. The Secretary of State is the highest ranking member of the [[President's Cabinet]] in both line of succession and order of precedence. The first Secretary of State was John Jay, under President [[George Washington]]. The current Secretary of State is [[Condoleezza Rice]].

==History==
The [[Second Continental Congress]] created the office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs to head the [[Department of Foreign Affairs|Department of State]] on January 13, 1781. Later that year, on July 27, President George Washington signed a law authorizing the executive department. On September 15th of the same year, the Department and Secretary of Foreign Affairs were renamed the Department and Secretary of State.
The title Secretary of State is of British origin. This title was given to senior members of the King's cabinet.

==Original Domestic Duties==
*Receipt, publication, distribution and preservation of laws of the U.S.
*Custody of the [[Great Seal of the United States]]
*Authentication of copies and preparation of commossions of executive branch appointments
*Final custody of the books, papers, and records of the Contintental Congress including the Constituion itself and the [[Declaration of Independence]]

==Current Duties==
*Storage and use of the Great Seal of the United States
*Performance of protocol functions for the [[White House]]
*Drafting of certain proclamations
*Formally accepting notice of the president's resignation - this has only happened once, when President [[Richard Nixon]] resigned in August 1974.
*Replies to inquiries