Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Cyril of Jerusalem

2010-11-05T00:42:14Z

VincentMC:

[[Image:Stcyril.jpg|right|300px|thumb| St. Cyril of Jerusalem]]

'''St. Cyril of Jerusalem''' (b. 315, died March 18, 386) grew up in the fourth century when the heretics of Arianism threatened the [[Holy See|Holy See's]] existence. ''"Make your fold with the sheep; flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church,"'' Cyril admonished all who would leave [[Christianity]]. He was a strong [[Catholic]] leader in the face of fierce adversity from internal and external forces. He was a deacon, priest then Bishop of [[Jerusalem]], an important position in the hierarchy of the early [[Church]]. His Catecheses remain valuable as examples of the ritual and theology of the Church in the mid-fourth century. <ref>[http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1326 St. Cyril of Jerusalem] American Catholic</ref> Cyril is only one of thirty-three to be called [[Doctor of the Church]].

==Early Life==
Nothing is available about his early life, nor his parents. All that is known, Cyril lived his entire life in Jerusalem. He had been ordained priest by St. Maximus. It was St. Maximus's death that led to Cyril's promotion.

==Famine==
Bishop Acacia had authority over all the bishops of Palestine. Cyril argued that his authority did not include Jerusalem because Jerusalem was an "apostolic see", one of the original sees set up by the apostles. The seeds for future disagreements were sown.

The poor turned to Cyril for help when a famine struck Jerusalem. Cyril, seeing the poor starving to death and having no money, sold some of the goods of the churches.
This would lead to false charges and accusations by other powerful Bishops. He was accused of insubordination and was condemned, driven from Jerusalem. He was later vindicated at the Council of Seleucia in 359.

==Exile==
Cyril's victory at Seleciua was short lived. Bishop Acacia had won the ear of the [[emperor]]. He devised a story of the [[King]]'s stolen robe, sold by Cyril to a dancer who died wearing the robe. That accusation banished him until Julian became emperor and recalled all exiled bishops, orthodox or Arian. Cyril returned to Jerusalem. <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=40 St. Cyril of Jerusalem] Catholic Online</ref>

When Acacius died, each faction nominated their own replacement for Caesarea. Cyril appointed his nephew Gelasius, causing great discord. What seemed like nepotism, Cyril was just offering the holiest man for the job. It was confirmed Gelasius that indeed, he was holy. A year later, both Cyril and Gelasius were driven out of [[Palestine]] again as the new emperor's consul reversed Julian's ruling.

It would be eight long years before he would return to Jerusalem. When he returned, he found the city destroyed by heresy and strife.

==Council at Constantinople==
At the end of Cyril's life, he would finally be vindicated for his hard faught efforts. The Nicene Creed and orthodoxy triumphed, Arianism was defeated. Cyril received justice at the same Council who cleared him of all previous rumors and commended him for fighting "a good fight in various places against the Arians."

==Works==
St. Cyril's catechetical lectures are among the most precious remains of Christian antiquity. Also, a sermon on the Pool of Bethesda, a letter to the Emperor Constantius. Many famous Catecheses sermons. The first mystagogical catechesis explains the renunciations of Satan, etc. which preceded baptism; the second is on the effects of baptism, the third on confirmation, the fourth on Holy Communion, and the fifth on holy Mass for the living and the dead. A 'Discipline of the Secret', or forbidden to reveal to heathen, decree was invoked.

Cyril lived his last eight years in peace. He died at the age of seventy.

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

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.

2010-11-05T00:40:57Z

VincentMC:

In '''''United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.''''', 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld, without dissent,the federal law prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of [[marijuana]] against a challenge based on medical need. The issue concerned the argument that patients, some of whom suffered from devastating illnesses, have a medical need for marijuana. The plaintiffs challenged a federal law interfering with patients' access to the drug.

Must Congress create a health exception to a generally applicable criminal law? The answer in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. was an emphatic "no". Although the Court declined to reach constitutional arguments in that case, there can be no doubt that the Constitution did not require a different outcome.

"Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a 'determination of values.'" ''Id.'' at 491 (quoting 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.4, p. 629 (1986)).

Three Justices concurred in the judgment, writing separately to leave open the possibility that patients themselves may still enjoy a medical necessity defense to laws banning certain drugs. ''Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.'', 532 U.S. at 499-503 (Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., concurring).

The concurring Justices in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. expressed another reservation about the majority decision. They worried about conflict between federal and state law concerning the alleged medical need for narcotics. 532 U.S. at 502. Several states have passed laws, typically by referendum, establishing a medical exemption for allegedly medical use of narcotics. But as the Court majority observed in rejecting this concern about federalism, "we are 'construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it.'" ''Id.'' at 495 (quoting ''United States v. Bailey'', 444 U.S. 394, 415 n.11 (1980)).
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

User:VincentMC

2010-11-04T03:36:31Z

VincentMC: That's better!

User talk:VincentMC

2010-11-04T03:24:23Z

VincentMC: Created page with ' == Good to be back == After an extended hiatus I declare my great pleasure at being back at Conservapedia. This project has great potential. --~~~~'

== Good to be back ==
After an extended hiatus I declare my great pleasure at being back at Conservapedia. This project has great potential. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:24, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

User:VincentMC

2010-11-04T03:22:48Z

VincentMC: Welcome to me!

Mystery Science Theater 3000

2010-11-04T02:52:04Z

VincentMC: /* Broadcast History */

'''Mystery Science Theater 3000''' ('''MST3K''') was a [[television]] program running from 1988 to 1999 involving one man and two [[robot]] puppets making fun of bad movies on a [[space station]].

==Broadcast History==
The show first aired on a Minneapolis local channel called KTMA. The Comedy Channel, which would later become Comedy Central, picked up the show in 1989. Comedy Central decided to cancel the show six episodes into the seventh season. The Sci-Fi Channel then picked up the show for the last three seasons.

==Framing Plot==
The framing plot of the show, which was really just a means to partially explain the movie-watching segments, changed over the course of the series. For the first season, the evil scientists Dr. Clayton Forrester and Dr. Laurence Erhardt trap the good-hearted janitor Joel Robinson on the "Satellite of Love" with the intention of torturing him by making him watch really bad movies. Once there, Joel builds robots for companionship. Robots "Tom Servo" and "Crow T. Robot" accompany Joel into the theater, while the robot "Gypsy" runs the higher functions of the ship and "Cambot" films the show. Once in the theater, Joel and "the bots" make fun of the movie, with the conceit that this will keep Joel sane.

In the third season of the show (the second season on Comedy Central), Dr. Erhardt was replaced by "TV's Frank," and the voice of Tom Servo was replaced as well. In the middle of the fifth Comedy Central season, the character of Joel was replaced by well-meaning temp Mike Nelson. TV's Frank left the show at the end of the sixth season, and the character of Pearl Forrester, Dr. Forrester's mother, was introduced to replace him. Dr. Forrester left at the end of the seventh, which was thought at the time to be the shows finale.

When the show was picked up by The Sci-Fi Channel, Dr. Forrester didn't return, which necessitated a change in Crow's voice. Pearl took over as the show's "villain", and added sidekicks "Bobo", a talking ape in ''Planet of the Apes'' style, and "Observer"/"Brain Guy", an allegedly incorporeal being who carries his brain in a dish.

==External Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094517/ Mystery Science Theater 3000] at the [[Internet Movie Database]]
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Ernest Rutherford

2010-11-04T02:48:52Z

VincentMC:

'''Ernest Rutherford''' (30 August 1871 – 19 October 1937) was a [[Nobel Prize]] winning physicist, who earned fame for the following discoveries:
* He explained the perplexing problem of radioactivity as the spontaneous disintegration of atoms (they were not necessarily stable entities as had been assumed since the time of the ancient Greeks);
*He determined the structure of the atom and showed that the positive charges of an atom are concentrated in its center. This disproved the [[Plum Pudding]] model of the atom; and
*He was the first person to successfully split the atom, whilst working in Manchester, UK in 1917.<ref>http://www.rutherford.org.nz/biography.htm</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:physics]]

Brock Lesnar

2010-11-04T00:43:45Z

VincentMC:

'''Brock Lesnar''' is a [[mixed-martial arts|mixed-martial artist]] fighting in the [[Ultimate Fighting Championship]]'s heavyweight division. Formerly [[WWE]]'s youngest ever champion at 25, he switched to MMA in 2008. His current record is 5 - 2 - 0 (Win - Loss - Draw)<ref>''Sherdog Fightfinder'' statistics for Brock Lesnar[http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Brock-Lesnar-17522]</ref>, with a big win against [[Heath Herring]]. However, his finest hour in MMA came at UFC 91, when he knocked out MMA legend and UFC Hall of Famer [[Randy Couture]] to gain the interim Heavyweight title. After the Couture fight, he fought [[Frank Mir]] at UFC 100 to both avenge a loss at UFC 81 and gain the undisputed UFC Heavyweight Title. Lesnar proceeded to destroy Mir for six minutes and forty-eight seconds to gain the title by TKO.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Lesnar, Brock}}

[[Category:Mixed Martial Artists]]
[[Category:UFC Heavyweights]]
[[Category:World Wrestling Entertainment]]

Brock Lesnar

2010-11-04T00:35:30Z

VincentMC: References

'''Brock Lesnar''' is a [[mixed-martial arts|mixed-martial artist]] fighting in the [[Ultimate Fighting Championship]]'s heavyweight division. Formerly [[WWE]]'s youngest ever champion at 25, he switched to MMA in 2008. His current record is 4-1<ref>http://www.ufc.com/BrockLesnar</ref>, with a big win against [[Heath Herring]]. However, his finest hour in MMA came at UFC 91, when he knocked out MMA legend and UFC Hall of Famer [[Randy Couture]] to gain the interim Heavyweight title. After the Couture fight, he fought [[Frank Mir]] at UFC 100 to both avenge a loss at UFC 81 and gain the undisputed UFC Heavyweight Title. Lesnar proceeded to destroy Mir for six minutes and forty-eight seconds to gain the title by TKO.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Lesnar, Brock}}

[[Category:Mixed Martial Artists]]
[[Category:UFC Heavyweights]]
[[Category:World Wrestling Entertainment]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-22T00:10:36Z

VincentMC: Not sure why this was removed. It seems relevant.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it. ''[[Time magazine]]'', in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

== Criticism ==

The film has been accused of quote mining, namely in the section referring to Social Darwinism's link to the Holocaust. A quote by Charles Darwin's ''The Decent of Man'' was given in this form:

<blockquote>
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
</blockquote>

The quote however, was both severely edited and truncate to make it appear that Darwin was advocating eugenics. However, the full quote quickly refutes this notion:

<blockquote>
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; ''and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.'' No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; ''but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil''.<ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181</ref>
</blockquote>

Ben Steins speech to the auditorium was done specifically for the film. Most of the crowd was extras, according to Michael Shermer, who was in the film.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer</ref>

The film also completely omits Theistic Evolution, focusing on the polar opposites of atheism and religion. Mark Mathis, an associate editor of Expelled, when asked why prominent religious evolutionists such as Catholic Kenneth R. Miller were not in the film, he stated that his inclusion "would have confused the film unnecessarily."<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-07T11:36:49Z

VincentMC: /* Sufiah Yusof */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Ah, time for [[ad hominem]] attacks, I see. Silly accusations of "liberal denial" say more about you than they do about me. I am surprised that I need to remind you that if you make an unfounded accusation it is up to YOU to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it. So go ahead, we are all waiting.

:::::: In your favour, however, I should acknowledge that your attempted justification based on the fact that one student of the university was once a Trotskyist was hilarious and certainly afforded me a good laugh. It was particularly funny given that the student in question was Christopher Hitchens who is now a conservative (in the true sense of the word, as opposed to the American sense). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 07:27, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-07T11:27:57Z

VincentMC: /* Sufiah Yusof */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Ah, time for [[ad hominem]] attacks, I see. I am surprised that I need to remind you that if you make an unfounded accusation it is up to YOU to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it. So go ahead, we are all waiting.

:::::: In your favour, however, I should acknowledge that your attempted justification based on the fact that one student of the university was once a Trotskyist was hilarious and certainly afforded me a good laugh. It was particularly funny given that the student in question was Christopher Hitchens who is now a conservative (in the true sense of the word, as opposed to the American sense). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 07:27, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-06T03:07:32Z

VincentMC: /* Sufiah Yusof */

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-06T02:38:52Z

VincentMC: /* Sufiah Yusof */

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-03-06T04:04:01Z

VincentMC: /* Tate */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-03-06T03:33:35Z

VincentMC: Who compiled this silly list?

Talk:Atheistic Style

2008-03-04T01:15:19Z

VincentMC:

Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Well Andy, you lasted 1 hour and 17 minutes before you reverted all of the "Citation Needed" tags. Need I say more? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 20:15, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Atheistic Style

2008-03-03T23:35:25Z

VincentMC:

There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:

# a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]] relied on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has lasting [[democracy]]{{fact}}
# a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]{{fact}}
# a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity{{fact}}
# a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]{{fact}}
# a belief that humans are smarter today than 100 and 1000 years ago{{fact}}
# a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood{{fact}}
# a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms{{fact}}
# a generally pessimistic or depressed view of life{{fact}}
# among scientists, a belief in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[black holes]], [[dark matter]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space{{fact}}
# belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities and newspapers as oracles of truth{{fact}}
# overreliance on [[hearsay]] and a perception (often wrong) of what most people think{{fact}}
# an insistence on censoring prayer from the classrom{{fact}}

==See also==

[[Liberal style]]

[[category:Atheism]]

Talk:Atheistic Style

2008-03-03T23:34:08Z

VincentMC:

Talk:Atheistic Style

2008-03-03T23:14:46Z

VincentMC: