Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2013-01-22T00:40:52Z

Wonders: David Icke

Mr Schlafly: this is such a great insight. I'm really impressed by some of the powerful conservative thinking on CP. Do you think most sports players are conservative because being successful at sport means being competitive? i.e trying to do your best instead of being a liberal wuss and complaining about other people doing well. Is it OK to add conservatives in UK sports like rugby, cricket and football? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 17:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

:Competitive sports is a [[meritocracy]], which is a [[conservative]] value. Liberals prefer to "spread the wealth," which in sports would mean leveling the wins and losses.

:Please do add legitimate examples from around the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

::I agree this is a fascinating page; enough so that I joined to help edit! Many athletes praise God in postgame interviews, etc., across all sports. I wonder if there's a way to work that into this page? [[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 17:18, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Football ==

Hi Andy, For Gavin Peacock, you changed "football" to "soccer" but you've left the sport beside some other people's names (Tim Tebow and Kurt Warner - sorry, I've never heard of them) as plain "football". Does that mean American football? (like rugby league with padding). Shouldn't we change "football" for those guys to "American football" so as not to confuse people outside the USA? Otherwise, this is a great page - and I don't see any nit-picky socialists whining about any of their guys being top sports(wo)men! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)
: I disagree. It is pretty obvious that football is American football. What the Europeans call football is really called "Association football" or "soccer" for short. [[User:JamieM|JamieM]] 20:36, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:: It's not obvious to people outside the USA. And I think you'll find that football was invented in England. (Except I expect archaeologists will find it came from France, like cricket...)[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 16:36, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::I am for getting rid of the non-American stars. At a minimum, a separate section. Plus, we do need to some conservative women on this page. Who follows women's sports in the Olympics, WNBA, NCAA Basketball, Fast Pitch Softball?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would expect that the American flag on the Conservapedia logo should give plenty of evidence that this is an American site. Anyone used to visiting sites outside their home country should be aware that "football" means different things in different countries (there's Australian, Canadian, and Gaelic - association football is by no means the only "football" outside the U.S.) and that in the USA it means American football. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Track and Field ==

Would Al Oerter qualify? He was the greatest discus thrower ever, one of only two athletes to win their event at four conservative Olympics. He was critical of the "drug culture" that had overtaken sports when he finally retired (at an age much older than when most athletes retire). He criticized steroid use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 30 November 2011 (EST)

== Sunday Sport ==

Can anyone clarify the actual significance of playing sport on a Sunday? Many people are included here for refusing to play on Sunday, and yet Lewis Hamilton is listed, when his sport take place exclusively on Sundays. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:26, 30 November 2011 (EST)
: Perhaps God has guided Ewen Murray to honour Him by observing the Sabbath, but Lewis Hamilton to glorify Him with outstanding achievements on the Sabbath. Questioning how the Lord has revealed himself to different people is awfully dangerous territory. Be humble enough to understand that He is working in different ways in different people with perfect wisdom. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:30, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:: You may well be right [[User:HollyS|HollyS]], but the problem is this page is not about sports stars who have been moved to act in particular ways by God; it's about conservative sports stars. It's hardly conservative to say that any behaviour is laudable as long as it's guided by God. Conservationism (thought I hate to oversimplify) is about sticking to some very strict ideas of what is right and what is wrong.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Maradona ==

I don't think Maradona should be on this list. First of all, the "Hand of God" Goal was actually a cheated goal. Maradona touched the ball with his hand and later called it the Hand of God... 
His personal life, according to the other Wiki, seems not so conservative as well. Maradona is divorced, cheated on his ex-wife, was addicted to cocaine and is nowadays very much befriended with Fidel Castro (according to TOW, he has a tattoo of Castro and Che Guevara) and highly critical of George W. Bush and the United States in general.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:20, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:We don't use the other wiki as a source of information, but I agree that Maradona is not conservative at all. Here is a video of Maradona talking at a Hugo Chavez speech. It is in Spanish, what Maradona says is: "Argentina is a worthy country. Lets throw Bush out!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzYNxAb36cI] --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 12:33, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:: Thanks for the info cooncerning the use of TOW. I crosschecked it with the German version, but was otherwise just too busy to find reliable data. I knew though beforehand, from reliable sources, that the "Hand of God" Goal had nothing to do with God, but was at best Maradona joking or at worst being blasphemous. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:05, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Moe Berg ==

Was Moe Berg really a conservative? I could not find any information on his political views. Being a spy ''during'', not ''before'' WWII, seems insufficient to make him a conservative. I thought he might have been conservative because he turned down the Medal of Freedom which would have been awarded by Harry Truman ( a Democrat), but I couldn't find anything on his reasons to do that either. Additionaly, from what I've read he was not really a great, but rather mediocre sports star, although an extremely interesting one. In conclusion: I don't think he belongs on this list. Any differing opinions?--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments. Does anyone else have information about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

::I added him initially. One of our characteristics of a [[Conservative]] is the belief "A strong national defense." Keep in mind he was spying on Japan because there was a strong feeling that we might go to war with them; there were certainly tensions already, and being caught spying in such a context would have had serious consequences for Mr. Berg. Needless to say, no liberal would put his neck on the line like that! I'll go ahead and add him in a few days unless there are objections.[[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 14:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::: Well from what I've read, his spying on Japan consisted of him making a few videos from the roof of a hospital. I'm not quite sure if such an action would have lead to serious consequences. Seems more like normal tourist behaviour. I'm also not quite sure if he did the filming with the intention of spying, or if the OSS aproached him later asking for the film. But be that as it may. Another reason why I'm not too convinced about the national defense angle is that I've read that Mr. Berg mainly wanted to work for the CIA after the War, so he could travel on their expense, which was one of the reasons, why the CIA did not rehire him. As you can see from my comment above, I could not find any other signs that Mr. Berg was a conservative. He seems to have been rather apolitical. But if you want to readd him, be my guest. He was certainly a very interesting individual, that deserves to be admired.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 15:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:::: All good points. In doing more research myself he does seem like more of an oddball than a hero, so I'll look around for some more inspiring entries. Thanks![[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 13:20, 6 January 2012 (EST)

== Possible Addition? ==

The Conservapedia article on Jeremy Lin talks about his strong Christian faith, and contains a quote of Lin talking about his faith. It looks like it would meet the criteria for "conservative" [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 11:55, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

:Jeremy is a great person but I'm not sure he has achieved enough yet to make it on this esteemed list. Can you find quotes about his politics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

== Ted Williams ==

Can we find a better example of media bias against Ted Williams? As I recall, the same year Ted hit .400, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio had a 56-game hit streak, and only one of them could win MVP. (Or they could tie in the voting, I guess, but you can't vote for Co-MVPs). Maybe I'm just biased since I'm a Yankees fan, but I think DiMaggio deserved it more that year. Either way, it's questionable. Can anyone think of anything? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 23:00, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak was spectacular, and one of the few baseball records that may never be broken. But a baseball season is 162 games (or 154 games then), and Ted Williams hit .400 over the entire season, not merely part of it.

:An analysis of the media voting shows it was bias that deprived Williams of the MVP that year. I think one sportswriter left Williams off his ballot entirely, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Fair enough Andy. I will add information on that sportswriter to the article to make it more clear. And like I said, it's questionable whether Williams or Dimmagio was more impressive. Williams could go 0-for-4 one day and get back on track by going 3-for-4 the next day. Jolting Joe didn't have that luxury. But this isn't a baseball debate, so let's end it. That information about Williams being left off the ballot does indeed show bias. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:46, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Your point is well-taken. I do think DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak is one of the greatest records in all of sports. After his streak was broken, he then had another hitting game streak after that, in the same season. Your edit to the content page is perfect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

== Rick Monday ==

I can find no proof of him being a conservative, per se, but he did once save an American Flag from a burning in 1976 during a Chicago Cubs - Los Angeles Dodgers game. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:That rescue of the American flag -- which was widely publicized -- does suggest that Rick Monday is probably conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
::Well, it is something I would do as well, although I'm not as conservative as most here. I'll add him to the list nonetheless. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:45, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== Sir John Major ==

I am for deleting this entry. The person in question must be recognized for their sporting achievements. For example, I wanted to add Lou Holtz, but he is known for his coaching and not his days playing for Kent State. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:54, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== If the speaker is obscure and irrelevent... ==

Then why include the quote? The quote isn't important unless the speaker is. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Moving quote about Tebow ==

Moving part of the quote about Tebow removes context. The analysist was talking about Tebow not being a team player, and him trying to draw attention to himself rather than the coach and starting quarterback. Without the context, the remaining quote could be interpreted by a reader as to apply to Tebow due to his religious beliefs - which ''it did not''. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:I clarified Tebow's entry based on my comment above. The way it was before implied the statement from the ESPN reporter referred to Tebow's religion. It wasn't, and without clarification, the quote is cherry-picking. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:38, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

==New Addition==
I'm not that good at wiki-code, so if someone better could put marathoner Ryan Hall up on the list, I believe he'd be a welcome addition. I first read about him [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sports/olympics/faith-is-central-to-marathoner-ryan-halls-approach.html?_r=1 here], where when asked to list his coach on a form at a routine drug test, he answered "God" --[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 22:54, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:I added him. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:58, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

David Icke is a madman who thinks lizard men run the world.
Eric liddle was a deeply christian man, but he was a socialist who would turn in his grave to be called conservative.

==Charles Barkley==

I'm removing Charles Barkley's entry. Yes, he has supported guns, but [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/charles-barkley-dui-bust he has served time for a DUI and admitted frequenting prostitutes and indulging in oral copulation], [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/sports/charles-barkley-91 has been charged with assault] (though acquitted, he still became involved in the fight), and [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/sports/charles-barkley-97 charged with aggravated battery and resisting arrest] for hurling an Orlando bar patron through a plate-glass window. Such a man is exactly the type of man who should not be allowed carry a gun - his behaviour is hardly fitting of mention in a list of 'Greatest Conservative Sports Stars', is it? [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 16:34, 21 January 2013 (EST)

==David Icke==

David Icke should have no part in this list either. 1) "Greatest"? Hardly - he retired from professional soccer at the age of 21 from injuries having had a completely unremarkable career in the bottom divisions of UK soccer; 2) "Conservative"? Hardly - he is a believer in Extraterrestrial Lizard Gods, Man's evolution from these extraterrestrial lizards and all forms of strange conspiracy theories in between; 3) "Sports"? See 1); "Stars"? See 1). [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 19:40, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2013-01-21T21:35:59Z

Wonders: Remove Charles Barkley - see refs and notes on Talk Page to his 'non-conservative behavior' history

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise [[God]] for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|[[Chuck Norris]]
|karate
|Six-time undefeated World Professional Karate Champion, middleweight division, and the first westerner ever to achieve an eighth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do; now a leading conservative commentator.
|-
|[[Jim Jordan]]
|wrestling
|two-time NCAA Division I wrestling champion, which included defeating a future Olympic gold medalist, and four-time state champion; leading [[conservative]] in [[Congress]] who chaired the Republican Study Committee for the 112th Congress.
|-
|Nolan Ryan
|baseball
|went from being one of the greatest pitchers of all time (7 no-hitters) to endorsing Texan Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst as "a proven conservative"
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|A pro-bowler for being one of the best linemen in the NFL, Runyan is now a Republican Congressman (NJ) who won reelection in 2012
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Former number 1 player in the world, Novak gives glory to God with the sign of the [[Crucifixion|Cross]] after big tennis victories.
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian; an analyst for the [[lamestream media]] said about him, "You need to disappear, okay, [[Tim Tebow]]?"<ref>Tedy Bruschi continued to say about Tebow, "You're not the starting quarterback, it's Mark Sanchez's team. I want my voice to come from my head coach and my quarterback -- my starting quarterback. That message has to be consistent. I don't want all this competition brewing, and every time you speak and anytime you talk about competition or anything like that, you're twisting things," he went on. "I want one voice. One quarterback, not two." [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829b6a76/article/tedy-bruschi-thinks-tim-tebow-should-pipe-down Tedy Bruschi thinks Tim Tebow should pipe down] nfl.com, retrieved June 26, 2012. (Tedi Bruschi was a former New England Patriots linebacker.)</ref> Pressed for a response, Tebow simply smiled and said, "I can't help him with that. That would be pretty hard."<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/06/jets-tim-tebow-on-tedy-bruschis-advice-i-just-do-what-im-told/1?loc=interstitialskip</ref>
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now. He has appeared on Glenn Beck's show to talk about his faith and addiction.
|-
|Matt Hasselbeck
|football
|Pro Bowl quarterback is a Christian who lends his name to "Tweet for Youcef" campaign organized by the [[ACLJ]], in support of the Iranian Christian pastor who has been sentenced to death.
|-
|Bill Laimbeer
|basketball
|led the [[Detroit Pistons]] to two [[NBA]] titles by defeating [[Michael Jordan]], [[Larry Bird]] and [[Magic Johnson]]; for a center, Laimbeer had an amazing outside shot and free-throw percentage, showing the versatility of a [[conservative]]; illustrating their [[double standard]], liberals whined about Laimbeer's rough style of play, without complaining about [[Dennis Rodman]]
|-
|Tim Thomas
|hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref> Thomas is a four-time [[NHL]] All-Star as a goalie - a great conservative position to play!<ref>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=610011</ref>
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|led the hopeless [[Boston Red Sox]] to a stunning [[World Series]] championship in 2004 after defeating the [[liberal]] [[New York Yankees]] in the American League Championship Series; for an encore he helped Scott Brown win "[[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]'s seat," an even greater upset. Also was co-MVP of the 2001 World Series, in which he helped the Arizona Diamondbacks defeat the Yankees in one of the biggest World Series upsets in history.
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY); he pitched a perfect game with the fewest pitches ever in the National League (only 90) -- like a true conservative! Bunning is also one of only five players to pitch a no-hitter in both the National and American Leagues.
|-
|George Allen
|football coach
|The father of [[conservative]] Senator George Allen, the coach ran a trick play once for President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/GOP_drafts_NFL_talent-53346877.html</ref>
|-
|Mike Ditka
|football player and coach
|outspoken pro-lifer when he was considering running for public office
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media, which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400 in 1941. It could be argued that [[Joe DiMaggio]]'s 56-game hit streak was more impressive that year, but the media bias was clearly a factor in the vote. One sportswriter inexplicably left Williams off his ballot entirely.
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' teams to the [[Super Bowl]], one of whom was the underachieving Cardinals.
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|Held the record for the longest time as #1 in the world -- more than 5 years -- until tied by Roger Federer due to his winning Wimbledon in 2012.
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|NBA Most Valuable Player and All-Star selection. He overcame troubled youth years and became a role model. Donated to the George W. Bush campaign and visited our troops in Afghanistan.
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left professional baseball and became a famous evangelist
|-
|Rick Monday
|baseball
|In 1976 he saved an American Flag from burning at the hands of two protestors
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[RINO]] [[Scott Brown]]
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|David Icke
|soccer
|Currently best known for his outspoken opposition to attempts by [[liberal]]s to control government and people's lives.
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their great-ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday. Instead, he competed in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Ryan Hall
|Track
|Evangelical Christian, said God was his trainer
|-
|[[Annie Oakley]]
|Sharpshooter
|Came to fame in her teens as an exhibition shooter, later to international fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show.
|-
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|Football
|Played center and linebacker for the [[University of Michigan]] and led them to two undefeated championship seasons. He was later offered professional contracts by two NFL franchises, but declined in order to attend law school. Later, Ford became minority leader of the [[House of Representatives]] and was appointed [[Vice President]] following the resignation of [[Spiro Agnew]] in the wake of the [[Wategrate]] scandal. When President [[Richard Nixon]] resigned shortly thereafter due to his role in the scandal, Ford became the first (and only) President of the United States never elected President or Vice President.
|}

== Stars Who Have Taken a Conservative or Religious Position ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Gabby Douglas
|Gymnastics
|Gave glory to God upon making the cut to represent the United States in the [[Olympics 2012|2012 Olympics]], and won the gold in the All-Around competition, as well as with the United States team event.
|-
|Tara Lipinski
|Figure skating
|Youngest (15) gold medalist in figure skating history, Tara gave credit to St. Therese of Lisieux for helping her win.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|-
|Babe Ruth
|baseball
|defended [[Catholic]]ism, saying that it gave him a standard for him to strive for personally
|-
|A.C. Green
|basketball
|record-holder for the longest number of consecutive games in the rough, injury-prone [[NBA]], Green has long been an outspoken advocate of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Lolo Jones
|Olympic hurdler
|outspoken supporter of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Al Oerter
|track and field
|a self-confessed "old fashioned Olympian",<ref>http://www.sify.com/sports/olympics/Profile/Al_Oerter.html</ref> this four-time Olympics discus champion spoke out against the use of steroids and their harmful effects during a time when other athletes were relying on them
|-
|Bubba Smith
|football
|one of the greatest defensive lineman, Bubba Smith gave up a lucrative contract to do beer commercials because he was concerned about the effect that alcohol has on people
|-
|David Tyree
|football
|hero of the upset victory by the New York Giants in the 2008 [[Super Bowl]] with a phenomenal catch, Tyree spoke out against [[same-sex marriage]], and later tweeted: "People of [[faith]] ... direct some prayers my way. Got darts comin from every direction. Blessed are those persecuted for [[Jesus|His name]]'s sake."<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6667583</ref>
|-
|Roger Staubach
|football
|an active Catholic, he told the press he said a "Hail Mary" during his last-ditch 50-yard pass toward the end zone in a 1975 playoff game, which was caught for a come-from-behind victory for his Cowboys; the name for such a football pass has stuck ever since.<ref>http://www.thegregorian.org/blog/american-catholic-hall-of-fame-sports-figures</ref>
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2013-01-21T21:34:52Z

Wonders: Removing Charles Barkley

Adoption success stories

2013-01-21T21:12:21Z

Wonders: Seems like there ought to be a page about Kaepernick?

This is a growing list of adopted people who made an enormous contribution to society:

*[[Pope Alexander VI]] - Spanish [[Pope]], 1492-1503 <ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/alexander-vi.html Alexander VI (Pope)], adoption.com</ref>
*[[Johann Sebastian Bach]] - German musician and composer <ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/bach-johann-sebastian.html Bach, Johann Sebastian], adoption.com</ref>
*[[Alexander Hamilton]] - one of the [[Founding Fathers]] and the first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] <ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/hamilton-alexander.html Hamilton, Alexander], adoption.com</ref>
*Scott Hamilton - Figure skater, Olympic medal winner <ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/hamilton-scott-scovell.html hamilton, scott scovell] Adoption.com</ref>
*[[Colin Kaepernick]] - adopted at only five weeks old by a new parents whose genetic defect prevented them from having healthy children, Kaepernick became a phenomenal quarterback in the [[NFL]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/niners/2012/12/07/tattoos-but-a-fraction-of-colin-kaepernicks-story/1752809/</ref>
*[[Andrew Jackson]] - 7th [[President of the United States of America]].<ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/jackson-andrew.html Jackson, Andrew], adoption.com</ref> Jackson's father was killed in a logging accident a few weeks before Jackson was born. His mother died when Jackson was fourteen; he lived with relatives for a year and a half after her death.<ref>State Library of North Carolina, ''Andrew Jackson [1767-1845]'' [http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/bio/public/jackson.htm]</ref>
*[[Steve Jobs]] - founder of [[Apple Inc.|Apple Computers]]<ref>http://www.investingvalue.com/investment-leaders/steve-jobs/index.htm</ref>
*[[Jacqueline Kasun]] - great [[conservative]] and founder of Humboldt Pro-Life. Kasun "spent most of her childhood with her father’s parents", and moved back in with her father as a college student.<ref>Humboldt Pro-Life, Jacqueline Kasun [http://www.humboldtprolife.com/jacqueline_kasun]</ref>
*[[James Michener]] - perhaps the most popular writer of historical novels in history, was adopted by a [[Quaker]] widow
*[[Thomas Monaghan]] - founder of [[Domino's Pizza]]<ref>http://famous.adoption.com/famous/monaghan-thomas.html</ref>
*[[Michael Reagan]] - adoptive son of President Ronald Reagan,<ref>http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/michael-reagan-interview.htm</ref>
*[[Babe Ruth]] - first adopted and raised for years by a Catholic orphanage, and then (when he 19) by a baseball scout.<ref>http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/yeung/baberuth/born.html</ref>
*[[Michael Steele]] - Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele was born at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland and adopted as an infant.<ref>U.S.News & World Report, ''10 Things You Didn't Know About Michael Steele'', by Danielle Burton, April 7, 2008[http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/07/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-michael-steele.html]</ref>
*[[Dave Thomas]] - founder of [[Wendy's]]
*Michael Oher - 2009 first round draft choice by the NFL [[Baltimore Ravens]] <ref>[http://abbafund.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/the-blind-side-%E2%80%93-trailer/ The Blind Side- Trailer]</ref>
*[[Faith Hill]] - famous country singer.<ref>http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/13-famous-people-who-were-adopted.htm#page=12</ref> Her husband had also been adopted as a child.
*[[Augustus Caesar]] - first Roman emperor, adopted by [[Julius Caesar]].

== Adoptive Parent ==

*[[George Orwell]] adopted a baby and raised him after his wife unexpectedly passed away, and this may have increased Orwell's growth as a conservative.
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (and his first wife Jane Wyman) adopted [[Michael Reagan]], who became [[conservative]].
*Bubba Watson, surprise winner of the 2012 [[Masters]].

==Bible==
*[[Moses]] -[[prophet]], legislator, [[judge]], and leader of the [[Israel]]ites <ref>[http://famous.adoption.com/famous/moses.html Moses], adoption.com</ref>
*[[Jesus]] - adopted by [[Joseph of Nazareth]]

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Adoption]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2013-01-21T21:09:14Z

Wonders: Hmmmm…don't know how to fix the <ref> issue so I'll revert to inline cite

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as [http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."]
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills; his own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points merely because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant, who outscored James and Bryant in the Olympics
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning threw two big interceptions to lead the Broncos to a humiliating exit from the 2013 playoffs.
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
(please revise or add to list)

== See also ==

*[[Conservapedia Proven Right]]

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2013-01-21T21:06:46Z

Wonders: fix ref

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Lance Armstrong]] — favored by the [[liberal media]] because he publicly denied belief in [[God]], he possibly pulled off the biggest scam in the history of sports by "winning" the [[Tour-de-France]] seven times with what has been described as "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."<ref>[http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/# Statement From USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart Regarding The U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy]</ref>
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills; his own [[British]] [[2012 Summer Olympics]] team did not even want him; his real skill seems to be in catering to the [[liberal media]].
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — was an overhyped bust at the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]; hasn't won a single title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points merely because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant, who outscored James and Bryant in the Olympics
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. After replacing Tebow, Manning threw two big interceptions to lead the Broncos to a humiliating exit from the 2013 playoffs.
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals. Even worse, the former coach of Nash was then hired by the Lakers in late 2012, rather than a far better coach who was available.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his mediocre play throughout his career.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments. Had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.
(please revise or add to list)

== See also ==

*[[Conservapedia Proven Right]]

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-01-18T17:27:25Z

Wonders: Nike and Anhueser Busch '''clearly''' favor conservative issues- just follow the money.

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Conservapedia proven right

2013-01-18T07:11:27Z

Wonders: (Actually it was I who first added Lance Armstrong, sorry)

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup, even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|February 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 2012
|-
|summer and fall 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 2009
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.
|April to May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|Nov. 12, 2012
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn".<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref>
|July of 2011
|-
|Oct. 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Nov. 29, 2011
|Conservapedia pointed out the connection between violent video games and [[young mass murderers]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_mass_murderers&oldid=941531</ref>
|Nonsense, liberals claimed.
|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later.
|Dec. 17, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|April 2012
|''Conservapedia'' criticizes the Denver Broncos for replacing [[Tim Tebow]] with Peyton Manning, and adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game.
|January 11, 2013
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|September 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season.
|December 2012
|-
|Nov. 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|The ''L.A. Lakers'' run their record to 15-20, after losing 5 in a row, and in a massive embarrassment are unlikely even to make the playoffs.
|January 10, 2013
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-01-09T04:31:52Z

Wonders: /* This article is complete garbage */

==This article is complete garbage==
E=mc^2 is only a simplified version created to be understood easier. If people had put dedicated effort for any amount of time, they could find the truth behind it. And "the bible says it's false" does not work, especially since the rest of the world completely agrees with the theory of relativity.
http://news.discovery.com/space/the-famous-emc2-is-incomplete-gotta-see-video-121030.html

:Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
::But wouldn't unanimously passed legislation be a good example of the [[Best of the Public]]? [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 23:31, 8 January 2013 (EST)

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:My dad's grandfather [[Charles Lane Poor]] also disagreed with this paper, although I think he eventually came around once enough evidence piled up for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:36, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Why ''also''? There is no evidence that Bohr disagreed with the paper (therefore the statement about Bohr is ''factually incorrect'', i.e., false) and the fabrication was removed from the article. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:Bohr and Einstein, though friends, had a famous debate about the new theories. If it was not about the particular 1905 paper you have in mind, then what were the Bohr–Einstein debates about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
::They had famous debates about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates quantum mechanics], which has nothing to do with the 1905 paper. I'm not aware of any debates about relativity. Can you provide a reference? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:09, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Indeed, it is well known that Bohr and Einstein discussed quantum-mechanics - here is Niels Bohr's own account of these discussions: ''[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics]''. Please keep in mind that Bohr was just 20 years old in 1905 - and only decided that year to drop philosophy and take up physics! If you can find any debate of Bohr and Einstein on purely relativistic matters, that will come as a surprise. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:41, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::You're getting a bit muddled here. One valid counterexample can deliver a fatal, knockdown blow to a purely philosophical / logical argument. Scientific theories (and their corresponding mathematical equations), however, are judged on the width and depth of their explanatory power, rather than on their ability to hold true in ''all'' cases. This is why we can still use Newton's equations to describe the motion of everything we can reasonably expect to bump into in everyday life. They might not hold true in ''all'' cases, but they still have sufficient explanatory bite to be very, very useful.

:::::::::::If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning, then you'll have to reject Newton's equations because of the instances where they fall down and fail to make accurate predictions. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to do that. --[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Andy, I think you are underestimating both the scientific savvy and the inquisitiveness of the contributors here. First, as you well know, but presumably don't like, those "counterexamples" are all wrong, and probably everyone here, except you, knows it. They have been refuted on the "rebuttal" page. Second, and this is my more important point, your claim that "few people are interested in reviewing more precise data" is not correct. I would be interested in reviewing such data, as would nearly everyone else here. Please post the data. Don't bother with the full observed precession of 5600 (or whatever) seconds relative to the old equinoctial frame, or 574 seconds with the new celestial frame. However that is calculated, the precession, after accounting for all the usual factors like gravitational effects of other planets and solar oblateness, is supposed to be 42.98 seconds or so. Please give a citation for the data showing that the GR figure is wrong. This argument has gone on for too long. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::Robert Dicke's criticism of the '''general''' theory of relativity may be well known, but we are here firmly in the realm of the '''special''' theory of relativity. And he didn't have problems with that one - so why have you? Are you a more able physicist than Robert Dicke? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

Aschlafly, could you please answer the questions in the questions in the section above: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ]]?

I'm interested in your interpretation of their results. (But please take into consideration that a chemical reaction releases perhaps the 1,000,000th part of the energy per unit of mass as the reaction observed by Cockcroft and Walton.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:28, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? ==

Aschlafly, do you know what E=mc^2 means? You say that "E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light." No. What it says is that matter is just another form of energy. That's it! It says nothing about unification of electromagnetism and gravity. Moreover, the m in the equation is inertial mass, not gravitational mass! If you look at any decent book on SR, it is the inertial mass that appears in the equations of relativistic energy-momentum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

== Open questions ==

Many questions in the sections above are still unanswered and I'm especially waiting for Aschlafly to answer those in the section ''[[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]''.

Aschlafly, could you at least provide me with your interpretation of the bolded sentence of Cockcroft's lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. '''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units'''''? Feel free to show your calculations!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:03, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

== Many leading scientists ... ==

...(including Lord Rutherford and Princeton Physics Professor [[Robert Dicke]]) rejected the [[Theory of Relativity]].

This article is about a result of the ''special theory of relativity''.
*Robert Dicke had no problems with the ''special theory'', he proposed an alternative to the ''general theory''. Or do you have a source where he attacked the ''special theory''?
*Ernest Rutherford thought that it was not beautiful, but he didn't reject the theory. Or do you have a source where he attacked theory for any other reason than being not beautiful?

Without any source, the statement in the article is meaningless - it's more a reflection of the opinion of the main author of the piece and is as convincing as a sentence like ''Sir Isaac Newton wouldn't have liked the theory neither.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:12, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

== Let's not dilute the truth here, OK? ==

Well, the truth is that more than 99% of all today's physics think that this formula is a marvel to behold. That this formula is ''liberal claptrap'' is only your personal opinion, Aschlafly. You haven't given any contemporary source to back this up. Are we expected to take your personal insights for the truth? I'm willing to do so only if you are able to present these insights in a comprehensible way, simply making a statement - and then repeating it over and over again - is not enough. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:59, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Agreed, let's not dilute the truth. E=MC2 is experimentally proven every time you look at the sun or any stars, it's proven every time an atom splits in a reactor to generate heat that in turn makes steam to spin a turbine and make electricity. I'm guessing the Sun being the center of the solar system is also "liberal claptrap" too. The part that I think is so funny is that everyone here is debating the topic so much when there probably isn't a single person on earth that would turn to Conservapedia for an explanation of anything even remotely scientific. [[User:Ntyson|Ntyson]] 17:45, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Talk:Cuba

2012-09-08T18:35:30Z

Wonders: /* Health Care */

Wow! Someone let a lefty section of this article slip past the censors. Hooray for free speech!
:I haven't taken geography since sixth grade, but I don't think Cuba is in the Gulf. Could be wrong though. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You are correct, I fixed it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::: technically, cuba is not a "communist country". it is a socialist country.--[[User:Iconoclastbeggar|Iconoclastbeggar]] 19:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::::Technically, you are in fact wrong. The Republic of Cuba is <s>ruled</s> governed by the Communist Party of Cuba; also, as any fule no, within the communist "naming system", for want of a better word (it's late here) "Communist state" is never used to name a state: a state, in their ideology, is either in a "capitalist" or "socialist" state, not a "communist state", which is by their definition a contradiction in terms. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:::::sooo, didn't you just prove my point?--[[User:Iconoclastbeggar|Iconoclastbeggar]] 20:42, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::::::There have been many countries that have declared themselves communist but I think none of them are actually communist; they're dictatorships that use communism as an excuse to do whatever they want. You might notice that communist countries are easily controlled by the government than non-communist ones, so communist is the perfect excuse for dictators. In South America, we see the opposite. Having been told by the U.S. of the evils of communism, South American dictators use Anti-communism as an excuse to hold power. They accuse any opposing party of being communist and then they jail them. -Sundance

Sundance that last sentence is quite dated; now it is fashionable to claim to be "socialist," that allows "nationalization" and looting of private industry, e.g. Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales. El Jigue 6-10-08

Thank you for your kind welcome. Will pay attention to rules but I am somewhat clumsy and often need to correct myself. El Jigue 6-7-08

:People often claim Castro is dead when he's not. Conservapedia is not a rumor mill - we will report his death when it is actually documented. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:50, 10 June 2008 (EDT) One must also keep in mind that Fidel Castro's health is an official state secret.[[User:Jigue|Jigue]]
6-10-08
:::Then that's all the more reason not to claim he's dead if no one knows for sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:47, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Sysop ruling:''' The term "communist country" means a country ruled by a Communist Party (or a Marxist-led "Workers Party"). No one ever gets this confused with the theoretical ideal stage of society proposed by Marx, wherein the socialist dictatorship "withers away"; see [[Communism (ideal)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

==Health Care==
Why was my sourced and entirely reasonable edit to the Health Care section removed? While this site may not 'approve' of Cuba, it's not 'encyclopedia like' to suppress factual information about it, and the information provided was sourced and accurate. It was certainly a more detailed explanation of how Health Care is actually run in Cuba than the current state to which it was reverted. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 13:18, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps calling Cuba's system "excellent" is a bit too subjective. Also, it appears you misused the <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> template. But other than that, the facts you presented were relevant and your Irish Times source appears to be credible and written by someone with first-hand knowledge of the Cuban health care system. I think the burden is on User:Karajou to defend his reversion. Maybe contact him on his Talk page if he doesn't respond here. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 13:58, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
::I agree that was too subjective, and I also admit I don't know how to use the template. But the article currently uses the weasel words "many believe the services provided are alarmingly inferior" without providing any citation for these "many" - one grumble from a failed Presidential Primary candidate does not "many" make, and I cannot find any citation for Hilda Morina's statement, neither in the Conservapedia article nor on the web, nor that she even was in the Cuban Health business. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 14:35, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Cuba

2012-09-08T17:18:29Z

Wonders: Health Care Reversion?

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-06T16:26:55Z

Wonders:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - won every title in cycling, but has since turned out to have won them all by taking vast amounts of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Tiger Woods]] - had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Cristiano Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-09-06T16:26:13Z

Wonders: more overrated stars

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.
#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#Boomer Esiason — the [[liberal media]] like how he criticizes [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]], but Esiason couldn't get the job done himself when he was a player: Esiason failed to win championships despite expectations.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.
#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.
#[[David Beckham]] - retired early to the weak American MLS league, so his wife could shop in Beverly Hills. Has chosen the celebrity lifestyle over true sports greatness.
#[[Ronaldinho]] - looked like a wonderful player in early years, but quickly became overweight due to his 'partying' lifestyle. Fired from minor Brazilian team, he declared he's finally "just going to party"
#[[Lance Armstrong]] - won every title in cycling, but has since turned out to have won them all by taking vast amounts of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
#[[Barry Bonds]] - all his baseball records were due to his extensive use of steroids.
#[[Alex Sanchez]] - same as Bonds.
#[[Tiger Woods]] - had a spectacular early career, but his performances got worse and worse due to his womanizing and partying lifestyle. Has never attained his promise.
#[[Ronaldo]] - his spectacular talents have been ruined by his self-obsession, vanity and cravings of celebrity. He is now officially "sad", despite being one of the luckiest men alive.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Cuba

2012-08-20T19:51:31Z

Wonders: /* Health-care */

{{Country
|name =''República de Cuba''
|map =Cuba rel94.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Cuba.png
|flag =Flag of Cuba.png
|arms =Arms of Cuba.PNG
|capital =Havana
|capital-raw =
|government =Communist
|government-raw =
|language =Spanish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Raul Castro
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =42,803 sq mi
|pop =11,382,820 (2006)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$109.4 billion (2008)
|gdp-pc =$9,500 (2008)
|currency =peso
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Cuba''' is located on an island in the [[Caribbean Sea]], 90 miles south of [[Florida]].

It is the only [[Communist]] country in the Western Hemisphere and is considered the worst [[dictatorship]] in this Hemisphere. Its high level of freedom and prosperity was destroyed by dictator [[Fidel Castro]]. [[Humberto Fontova]] wrote about the:
:... legend of that handful of long-haired, bearded [[beatnik]]s who overthrew a "brutal U.S.-backed dictatorship that repressed and impoverished Cuba"
:... in fact Cuba had a higher standard of living in 1958 than half of Europe, a larger middle class than Switzerland, a more highly unionized work force than the U.S., more doctors and dentists per capita than Great Britain, more cars and televisions per capita than Canada or Germany, [and] was inundated with immigrants.<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=86DE50D7-E16B-42C6-B61E-035B6A1F541D Che Guevara: Mass Murderer and Coward]</ref>

Cuba kills or jails people who try to leave it. When a group of people tried to leave in 1994, a Cuban navy ship rammed their boat and shot water cannons at survivors, drowning 43 people.<ref>
Thirty one people were finally plucked from the seas and hauled back to Cuba where all were jailed or put under house arrest.[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/anniversary_of_a_castroite_mas.html Anniversary of a Castroite Massacre]</ref>

==History==
see [[History of Cuba]]
==People==
[[Image:Cuban people.jpg|left|260px]]
Cuba is a multiracial society with a population of mainly [[Spanish]] and [[African]] origins. Recent [[mitochondrial DNA]] evidence indicates that genetic contributions of peoples of the [[neo-Taino]] nations such as the Siboney, is not negligible.

{{Clear}}

==Religion==
The Roman Catholic Church estimates that 60% of the population is Catholic. Membership in Protestant churches is estimated to be 5% and includes Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and Lutherans. Other groups include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The remainder of the population is either non-practicing of any particular religion, atheist, or agnostic.

Some sources estimate that as much as 80% of the population consults with practitioners of religions with West African roots, such as Santeria or Yoruba, for assistance with specific immediate problems such as bearing children, curing illness, or ensuring safe passage. In 2008 a historically secretive group affiliated with Afro-Cuban religious practices, the Abalcua Society, opened a public office.

The Cuban Council of Churches (CCC) is a private, officially sanctioned umbrella organization that works closely with the Government and includes 25 religious organizations as full members, 9 associate members, and 3 with observer status. During the reporting period the Greek Orthodox Church and the Pentecostal Church of Sovereign Grace in Cuba became new full members. Three new communities were accepted as fraternal associate members: the Assembly of Christian Churches, the Quadrangular Pentecostal Church, and the Reflection and Solidarity Group Msgr. Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The Christian New Life Church became an observer member. The CCC is structured into 5 "zones" across the island and, according to the CCC's leadership, represents approximately 100,000 Christians. Most CCC members are officially recognized by the State, although several, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church, lack legal status and are recognized through their membership in the CCC. Other officially recognized groups, including the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the small Jewish and Muslim communities, do not belong to the CCC.
[[Image:Iglesia Cuba.jpg|right|300px]]
Catholic Church officials estimate that 10% of baptized Catholics attend Mass regularly. Membership in Protestant churches increased and was estimated at 550,000 persons. The Baptists, represented in four different conventions, are possibly the largest Protestant denomination, followed closely by the Pentecostal churches, particularly the Assembly of God. The number of Pentecostals is believed to be rising sharply. Jehovah's Witnesses report more than 86,000 members, the Seventh-day Adventists 30,000, and Methodists 18,000. There are 22,000 Anglicans and 15,000 Presbyterians. The Jewish community has 1,500 members, with 1,200 of them residing in Havana. The Muslim population consists of 6,000 temporary residents and 300 native-born. There are small communities of Quakers (300) and Mormons (30).

The largest organized religion is the [[Roman Catholic Church]], but evangelical [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations continue to grow rapidly. Afro-Cuban religions, a blend of native African religions and Roman Catholicism, are widely practiced in Cuba. Officially, Cuba has been an [[atheist]] state for most of the Castro era. In 1962, the government of [[Fidel Castro]] seized and shut down more than 400 [[Catholic schools]], charging that they spread dangerous beliefs among the people. In 1991, however, the [[Communist]] Party lifted its prohibition against religious believers seeking membership, and a year later the government labeled itself as secular instead of atheist.

While the Cuba has laws on the books supposedly granting the right of citizens to [[freedom of religion]], the government de facto restricts that freedom.
*"This government maintains an active opposition to house churches, which have grown dramatically since petroleum for driving to traditional churches is no longer available."
*"Christian workers entering the country often have items or materials confiscated by customs officials and are rarely allowed to enter if the true reasons for their coming is known."<ref>[http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=13 Persecuted Countries: Cuba - Persecution.org - International Christian Concern]</ref>
[[Image:Cuba and Pope.jpg|left|180px]]
Twenty-two denominations, including [[Presbyterian]]s, [[Episcopalian]]s, and [[Methodist]]s, are members of the Cuban Council of Churches (CCC). Most CCC members are officially recognized by the State, though several, including the [[Evangelical Lutheran Church]], are not registered and are recognized only through their membership in the CCC. Another 31 officially recognized denominations, including [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] and the small [[Jewish]] community, do not belong to the CCC. The government does not favor any one particular religion or church; however, the government appears to be most tolerant of those churches that maintain close relations to the State through the CCC. Unregistered religious groups experience various degrees of official interference, harassment, and repression. The Ministry of Interior engages in active efforts to control and monitor the country's religious institutions, including through surveillance, infiltration and [[harassment]] of religious professionals and practitioners. The most independent religious organizations--including the Catholic Church, the largest independent institution in Cuba today--continue to operate under significant restrictions and pressure imposed on them by the Cuban regime. The Cuban Government continues to refuse to allow the church to have independent [[printing press]] capabilities, full access to the [[media]], the ability to train enough [[priest]]s for its needs or allow adequate numbers of foreign priests to work in the country, or the ability to establish socially useful institutions, including schools and universities, hospitals and clinics, and nursing homes. All registered denominations must report to the Ministry of Interior's Office of Religious Affairs.

The visit of Pope [[John Paul II]] in January 1998 was seen as an important, positive event for bringing a message of hope and the need for respect of human rights. Unfortunately, these improvements did not continue once the Pope left the island. While some visas were issued for additional priests to enter Cuba around the time of the visit, the regime has again sharply restricted issuance of visas. Moreover, despite explicit regime guarantees and repeated follow-up requests, the regime has refused to permit the Catholic Church to establish [[Internet]] connections or an intranet among [[diocese]]s on the Island. In a pastoral letter entitled "There is No Country Without Virtue" ("No Hay Patria Sin Virtud"), the Cuban Conference of Catholic Bishops in February 2003 openly criticized the government's strict control over the activities of the Catholic Church, especially state restrictions on religious education and Church access to mass media, as well as the increasingly [[amoral]] and irreligious character of Cuban society under Communist rule.

Other Cuban religious groups--including [[evangelical Christians]], whose numbers continue to grow rapidly--also have benefited from the relative relaxation of official restrictions on religious organizations and activities. Although particularly hard hit by emigration, Cuba's small Jewish community continues to hold services in Havana and has members in Santiago, Camaguey, and other parts of the island. See also the Department's report on international religious freedom for further information.

==Government==
[[Image:EL CAPITOLIO HABANA Cuba.jpg|thumb|240px|The Capitol]]
Cuba is a [[totalitarian]] state formerly controlled by Fidel Castro, who is chief of state, head of government, First Secretary of the PCC, and commander in chief of the armed forces. Castro seeks to control most aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the state security apparatus. In March 2003, Castro announced his intention to remain in power for life, but has since ceded power to his brother, [[Raul Castro]]. The Ministry of Interior is the principal organ of state security and control.

Since 1976, the National Assembly of People's Power, and its Council of State when the body is not in session, have supreme authority in the Cuban system. Since the National Assembly meets only twice a year for a few days each time, the 31-member Council of State wields power. The Council of Ministers, through its 9-member executive committee, runs the economy except for a tiny and shriveling open-market sector. Fidel Castro is President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers and his brother Raul serves as First Vice President of both bodies as well as Minister of Defense.

Courts are explicitly subordinated to the National Assembly and to the Council of State. [[Due process]] is routinely denied to Cuban citizens, particularly in cases involving [[political]] offenses. The constitution states that all legally recognized [[civil liberties]] can be denied to anyone who opposes the "decision of the Cuban people to build socialism." Citizens can be and are jailed for terms of 3 years or more for simply criticizing the communist system or Fidel Castro.

The Communist Party is Cuba's only legal political party. The party monopolizes all government positions, including judicial offices. Though not a formal requirement, party membership is a de facto prerequisite for high-level official positions and professional advancement in most areas, although a tiny number of non-party members have on extremely rare occasions been permitted by the controlling Communist authorities to serve in the National Assembly. The Communist Party or one of its front organizations approves candidates for any elected office. Citizens do not have the right to change their government. In March 2003, the government carried out one of the most brutal crackdowns on peaceful opposition in the history of Cuba when it arrested 75 [[human rights]] activists, independent journalists and opposition figures on various charges, including aiding a foreign power and violating national security laws. Authorities subjected the detainees to summary trials and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from 6 to 28 years. Amnesty International identified all 75 as "prisoners of conscience." The European Union (EU) condemned their arrests and in June 2003, it announced its decision to implement the following actions: limit bilateral high-level governmental visits, reduce the profile of member states' participation in cultural events, reduce economic assistance and invite Cuban dissidents to national-day celebrations. See also the Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Cuba.

Although the constitution allows legislative proposals backed by at least 10,000 citizens to be submitted directly to the National Assembly, in 2002 the government rejected a petition known as the Varela Project, supporters of which submitted 11,000 signatures calling for a national referendum on political and economic reforms. Many of the 75 activists arrested in March 2003 participated in the Varela Project. In October 2003, Project Varela organizers submitted a second petition to the National Assembly with an additional 14,000 signatures. Since April 2004, some prisoners of conscience have been released, seven of whom were in the group of 75; all suffered from moderate to severe medical conditions and many of them continue to be harassed by state security even after their release from prison. Moreover, in response to a planned protest by activists at the French Embassy in Havana in late July 2005, Cuban security forces detained 33 opposition members, three of whom had been released on medical grounds. At least 16 other activists were either arrested or sentenced to prison since 2004 for opposing the Cuban Government. There has also been a resurgence of harassment of various activist groups, most notably the "Damas en Blanca," a group of wives of political prisoners.

On July 31, 2006 the Castro regime announced a "temporary" transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, who until that time served as head of the Cuban armed forces and second-in-command of the government and the Communist Party. It was the first time in the 47 years of Fidel Castro’s rule that power had been transferred. The transfer took place due to intestinal surgery of an undetermined nature.

On February 19, 2008, Fidel Castro announced that he would officially step down as leader of Cuba. Five days later, on February 24, Raul Castro, Fidel's brother, was elected the new President of Cuba.

===Foreign Relations===
Cuba's once-ambitious foreign policy has been scaled back and redirected as a result of economic hardship and the end of the Cold War. Cuba aims to find new sources of trade, aid, and foreign investment and to promote opposition to U.S. policy, especially the trade embargo and the 1996 Libertad Act. Cuba has relations with over 160 countries and has civilian assistance workers--principally physicians and nurses--in more than 20 nations.

Since the end of Soviet backing, Cuba appears to have largely abandoned monetary support for guerrilla movements that typified its involvement in regional politics in Latin America and Africa, though it maintains relations with several guerrilla and terrorist groups and provides refuge for some of their members in Cuba. Cuba's support for Latin guerrilla movements, its Marxist-Leninist government, and its alignment with the U.S.S.R. led to its isolation in the hemisphere. Cuba is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), although its present government has been excluded from participation since 1962 for incompatibility with the principles of the inter-American system. Cuba hosted the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in September 2006 and will hold the NAM presidency until 2009. In the context of the NAM and its ordinary diplomacy, Cuba has developed friendly relations with Iran, North Korea and other rogue states.
[[Image:American Embassy Cuba.jpg|thumb|left|280px|American Embassy]]
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Cuba expanded its military presence abroad, spending millions of dollars in exporting revolutions; deployments reached 50,000 troops in Angola, 24,000 in Ethiopia, 1,500 in Nicaragua, and hundreds more elsewhere. In Angola, Cuban troops, supported logistically by the U.S.S.R., backed the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in its effort to take power after Portugal granted Angola its independence. Cuban forces played a key role in Ethiopia's war against Somalia and remained there in substantial numbers as a garrison force for a decade. Cubans served in a non-combat advisory role in Mozambique and the Congo. Cuba also used the Congo as a logistical support center for Cuba's Angola mission. In the late 1980s, Cuba began to pull back militarily. Cuba unilaterally removed its forces from Ethiopia, met the timetable of the 1988 Angola-Namibia accords by completing the withdrawal of its forces from Angola before July 1991, and ended military assistance to Nicaragua following the Sandinistas' 1990 electoral defeat.

EU-Cuban diplomatic relations have suffered as a result of the March 2003 crackdown on dissidents. In June 2004, EU members imposed restrictive measures on Cuba including inviting dissidents to national day celebrations and suspending high-level meetings between EU members and the Cuban Government. In January 2005, though, the restrictions were suspended in an effort to re-engage the regime as a means of advancing the EU’s policy of encouraging reform while preparing for the transition.

Spain is among the most important foreign investors in Cuba. The ruling Zapatero government continues Spain’s longstanding policy of encouraging further investment and trade with Cuba. Cuba imports more goods from Spain (almost 13% of total imports) than from any other country. Spanish economic involvement with Cuba is exclusively centered on joint venture enterprises that provide financial benefit to the Cuban Government through state-owned firms. Spain’s desire to provide support to its business community often impedes its willingness to pressure the Cuban Government on political reform and human rights issues.

Cuba’s bilateral relationship with Venezuela has helped keep the Cuban economy afloat. The "Integral Cooperation Accord" signed by Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in October 2000 laid the groundwork for a quasi-barter exchange of Venezuelan oil for Cuban goods and services that has since become a lifeline for Cuba. For Cuba, the benefits of the cooperation accord are subsidized petroleum and increased hard currency flows. The original agreement allowed for the sale, at market prices, of up to 53,000 barrels per day of crude oil and derivatives (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) by PDVSA, Venezuela's state-owned petroleum company, to its Cuban counterpart, CUPET. The number of barrels of oil Venezuela began selling to Cuba has risen to over 90,000 barrels daily. Under the accord, PDVSA extended preferential payment terms to CUPET, including 90-day short-term financing instead of the 30 days offered to its other customers and, in lieu of a standard letter of credit backed by an international bank, PDVSA accepted IOUs from Cuba's Banco Nacional, the central banking entity responsible for servicing Havana's foreign debt. In August 2001, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez amended the 2000 accord to allow Venezuela to compensate the Cuban Government in hard currency for any and all Cuban products and services originally intended as in-kind payment for Venezuelan oil. As a result, Cuban exports of goods and services to Venezuela climbed from $34 million in 2001 to more than $150 million in 2003. Venezuelan ministries are contracting with Cuba for everything from generic pharmaceuticals to pre-fabricated housing and dismantled sugar mill equipment. On April 28, 2005, Chavez and Castro signed 49 economic agreements in Havana, covering areas as diverse as oil, nickel, agriculture, furniture, shoes, textiles, toys, lingerie, tires, construction materials, electricity, transportation, health, and education. Venezuela is also committed to sending more than $400 million in various products duty free to Cuba and plans to open an office of state-owned commercial Venezuelan Industrial Bank (BIV) in Havana to finance imports and exports between the two countries, while Cuba will open an official Banco Exterior de Cuba in Caracas. Increased economic engagement along with the rapid growth in Cuban sales to Caracas has established Venezuela as one of the island's largest export markets.

A series of recent economic agreements between Cuba and China have strengthened trade between the two countries. Sino-Cuban trade totaled more than $525 million in 2004, according to China Customs statistics. This represents an increase of more than 47% over 2003. Most of China’s aid involves in-kind supply of goods or technical assistance. During President Hu-Jintao’s visit to Cuba in November 2004, China signed investment-related memoranda of understanding (MOUs) estimated at more than $500 million, according to press reports. If these MOUs are fully realized, they would represent a sharp increase in known Chinese investments in Cuba. In addition to these MOUs, a number of commercial accords were signed at the first-ever Cuba-China Investment and Trade Forum. China also plans to invest approximately $500 million in a nickel operation in Moa in the eastern province of Holguin. According to the MOU, Cuba will own 51% of the enterprise and Chinese-owned Minmetals the remaining 49%. Chinese and Venezuelan economic support, including investment and direct aid, have given Cuba the space to eliminate many of the tentative open market reforms Cuba put in place during the depth of its mid-1990s economic crisis.

The Russian prime minister visited Cuba in October 2006, signaling a new effort to expand trade and investment, albeit financed by Russian credit. Russia set aside, for the moment, more than USD 20 billion in Soviet-era debt, restructured post-1991 debt, and extended a new credit line to Cuba. The new credit line is for USD 355 million repayable over 10 years at an interest rate of five percent. The new credit is conditioned in that it must be used to purchase Russian cars, trucks, planes, as well as to finance Cuban energy and transport infrastructure projects, including air navigation systems. Russia further agreed to restructure USD 166 million in debt accumulated since 1993. Both nations also signed an agreement on military equipment and technical services.

==Defense==
[[Image:Raul Castro.jpg|thumb|Raul Castro.]]
Under Castro, Cuba is a highly militarized society. From 1975 until the late 1980s, massive Soviet military assistance enabled Cuba to upgrade its military capabilities and project power abroad. The tonnage of Soviet military deliveries to Cuba throughout most of the 1980s exceeded deliveries in any year since the military build-up during the 1962 missile crisis.

With the loss of Soviet-era subsidies in the early 1990s, Cuba's armed forces have shrunk considerably, both in terms of numbers and assets. Combined active duty troop strength for all three services is estimated at 50,000 to 55,000 personnel (compared to some 235,000 on active duty 10 years ago) and much of Cuba's weaponry appears to be in storage. Cuba's air force, once considered among the best equipped in Latin America, no longer merits that distinction, though it still possesses advanced aircraft and weapons systems; the navy has become primarily a coastal defense force with no blue water capability. The Cuban army is still one of the region's more formidable, but it also is much reduced and no longer has the considerable resources necessary to project power abroad.

The military plays a growing role in the economy and manages a number of hotels in the tourist sector. The country's two paramilitary organizations, the Territorial Militia Troops and the Youth Labor Army, have a reduced training capability. Cuba also adopted a "war of the people" strategy that highlights the defensive nature of its capabilities. The government continues to maintain a large state security apparatus under the Ministry of Interior to repress dissent within Cuba, and in the last decade has formed special forces units to confront indications of popular unrest.

==Human Rights Issues==

Cuba’s totalitarian regime controls all aspects of life through the Communist Party (CP) and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy and the Department of State Security. The latter is tasked with monitoring, infiltrating and tormenting the country’s beleaguered human rights community. The government continues to commit serious abuses, and denies citizens the right to change their government.

The government incarcerates people for their peaceful political beliefs or activities. The total number of political prisoners and detainees is unknown, because the government does not disclose such information and keeps its prisons off-limits to human rights organizations. As of July 1, 2006, at least 316 Cubans were being held behind bars for political crimes, according to the independent Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation.
[[Image:Fabelo, Roberto.jpg|thumb|left|From "Memorias series" by Roberto Fabelo]]
The government places severe limitations on freedom of speech and press. Reporters Without Borders calls Cuba the world’s second biggest jailer of journalists. The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press insofar as they "conform to the aims of a socialist society." The government considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and foreign mainstream magazines and newspapers to be enemy propaganda. Access to the Internet is strictly controlled and given only to those deemed ideologically trustworthy.

Freedom of assembly is not a right in today’s Cuba. The law punishes any unauthorized assembly of more than three persons. The government also restricts freedom of movement and prevents some citizens from emigrating because of their political views. Cubans need explicit "exit permission" from their government to leave their country, and many people are effectively held hostage by the Cuban government, despite the fact that they have received travel documents issued by other countries.

The government does not tolerate dissent. It targets dissenters by directing militants from the CP, the Communist Youth League, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Federation of Cuban Women, the Association of Veterans of the Cuban Revolution, and other groups to stage a public protest against the dissenter, usually in front of his/her house. These protests, called "acts of repudiation," involve the shouting of insults and the occasional use of violence. The events generate intense fear and are aimed at ostracizing and intimidating those who question the government’s policies.

Prison conditions are harsh and life-threatening. Although physical torture is rare, cruel treatment of prisoners – particularly political prisoners and detainees – is common. Prison authorities frequently beat, neglect, isolate and deny medical treatment to inmates. Authorities often deny family visits, adequate nutrition, exposure to sunshine, and pay for work. Overcrowding is rife. Inmates friendly with prison guards often receive preferential treatment. This leads to abuse, whereby connected inmates assault others with impunity. Desperation inside the country’s estimated 200 prisons and work camps is at high levels and suicides and acts of self-mutilation occur. Thousands of Cubans are currently imprisoned for "dangerousness," in the absence of any crime.

Worker rights are largely denied. The law does not allow Cuban workers to form and join unions of their choice. The government-approved unions do not act as trade unions, promote worker rights or protect the right to strike; rather, they are geared toward ensuring that production goals are met. Some workers lose their jobs because of their political beliefs. Salaries are not high enough to meet food and clothing costs; consequently, many Cubans are forced into small-scale embezzlement or pilfering from their employers.

==Economy==
The Cuban Government continues to adhere to socialist principles in organizing its state-controlled economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and, according to Cuban Government statistics, about 75% of the labor force is employed by the state. The actual figure is closer to 93%, with some 150,000 small farmers and another 150,000 "cuentapropistas," or holders of licenses for self-employment, representing a mere 2.1% of the nearly 4.7 million-person workforce. Labor is an economic input that is entirely under the control of the government to the point that Cubans have been sent overseas, so that their labor can be used to repay debt, while workers are kept secluded and paid a typical Cuban wage of $18 a month.<ref>Robles, Frances 2008 (accessed 7-8-08) Cuba paid debts with forced labor, lawsuit says. Miami Herald Thu, Jul. 17, 2008 http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/607434.html </ref>
[[Image:Hotel Varadero Cuba.jpg|thumb|270px|Varadero resources.]]
The Cuban economy is still recovering from a decline in gross domestic product of at least 35% between 1989 and 1993 as the loss of Soviet subsidies laid bare the economy's fundamental weaknesses. To alleviate the economic crisis, in 1993 and 1994 the government introduced a few market-oriented reforms, including opening to tourism, allowing foreign investment, legalizing the dollar, and authorizing self-employment for some 150 occupations. These measures resulted in modest economic growth; the official statistics, however, are deficient and as a result provide an incomplete measure of Cuba's real economic situation. Living conditions at the end of the decade remained well below the 1989 level. Lower sugar and nickel prices, increases in petroleum costs, a post-September 11, 2001 decline in tourism, devastating hurricanes in November 2001 and August 2004, and a major drought in the eastern half of the island caused severe economic disruptions. Growth rates continued to stagnate in 2002 and 2003, while 2004 and 2005 showed some renewed growth. Moreover, the gap in the standard of living has widened between those with access to dollars and those without. Jobs that can earn dollar salaries or tips from foreign businesses and tourists have become highly desirable. It is not uncommon to see doctors, engineers, scientists, and other professionals working in restaurants or as taxi drivers.

Castro’s regime has pulled back on earlier market reforms and is seeking tighter state control over the economy. The Cuban Government is aggressively pursuing a policy of recentralization, making it increasingly difficult for foreigners to conduct business on the island. Likewise, Cuban citizens are adversely affected by reversion to a peso economy.

Prolonged austerity and the state-controlled economy's inefficiency in providing adequate goods and services have created conditions for a flourishing informal economy in Cuba. As the variety and amount of goods available in state-run peso stores has declined, Cubans have turned increasingly to the black market to obtain needed food, clothing, and household items. Pilferage of items from the work place to sell on the black market or illegally offering services on the sidelines of official employment is common, and Cuban companies regularly figure 15% in losses into their production plans to cover this. Recognizing that Cubans must engage in such activity to make ends meet and that attempts to shut the informal economy down would be futile, the government concentrates its control efforts on ideological appeals against theft and shutting down large organized operations. A report by an independent economist and opposition leader speculates that more than 40% of the Cuban economy operates in the informal sector. Since 2005, the government has carried out a large anti-corruption campaign as it continues efforts to recentralize much of the economy under the regime's control.

Sugar, which has been the mainstay of the island's economy for most of its history, has fallen upon troubled times. In 1989, production was more than 8 million tons, but by the mid-1990s, it had fallen to around 3.5 million tons. Inefficient planting and cultivation methods, poor management, shortages of spare parts, and poor transportation infrastructure combined to deter the recovery of the sector. In June 2002, the government announced its intention to implement a "comprehensive transformation" of this declining sector. Almost half the existing sugar mills were closed, and more than 100,000 workers were laid off. The government has promised that these workers will be "retrained" in other fields, though it is unlikely they will find new jobs in Cuba's stagnant economy. Moreover, despite such efforts, the sugar harvest continued to decline, falling to 2.1 million tons in 2003, the smallest since 1933. The harvest was not much better in 2004, with 2.3 million tons, and even worse in 2005, with 1.3 million tons.
[[Image:Playas Holguin Cuba.jpeg|thumb|300px|Beaches at Holguin.]]
In the mid-1990s, tourism surpassed sugar as the primary source of foreign exchange. Tourism figures prominently in the Cuban Government's plans for development, and a top official cast it as at the "heart of the economy." Havana devotes significant resources to building new tourist facilities and renovating historic structures for use in the tourism sector. Roughly 1.7 million tourists visited Cuba in 2001, generating about $1.85 billion in gross revenues; in 2003, the number rose to 1.9 million tourists, predominantly from Canada and the European Union, generating revenue of $2.1 billion. The number of tourists to Cuba in 2004 crossed the 2 million mark (2.05 million), including the so-called "medical tourists" from other Latin American countries seeking free medical treatment at Cuban facilities. In 2005 the number of tourists increased to 2.32 million.

Nickel is now the biggest earner among Cuba's goods exports. The nickel industry has been operating close to full capacity and therefore currently stagnant, but it is benefiting from unprecedented increases in world market prices. Revenues have more than doubled from $450 million in 2001 to $1 billion in 2005. The government is making attempts to increase extraction capacity.

Remittances also play a large role in Cuba's economy. Cuba does not publish accurate economic statistics, but academic sources estimate that remittances total from $600 million to $1 billion per year, with most coming from families in the United States. U.S. regulation changes announced in June 2004 allow remittances to be sent only to the remitter's immediate family; they cannot be remitted to certain Cuban Government officials and members of the Cuban Communist party; and the total amount of family remittances that an authorized traveler may carry to Cuba is now $300, reduced from $3,000. (See also the Commission on Assistance to a Free Cuba report at www.cafc.gov, cited below.) The Cuban Government captures these dollar remittances by allowing Cuban citizens to shop in state-run "dollar stores," which sell food, household, and clothing items at a high mark-up averaging over 240% of face value.

Beginning in November 2004, Castro mandated that U.S. dollars be exchanged for "convertible pesos"--a local currency that can be used in special shops on the island but has no value internationally--for a 10% charge. The 10% conversion fee disproportionately affects Cubans who receive remittances from relatives in the U.S.

To help keep the economy afloat, Cuba has actively courted foreign investment, which often takes the form of joint ventures with the Cuban Government holding half of the equity, management contracts for tourism facilities, or financing for the sugar harvest. A new legal framework laid out in 1995 allowed for majority foreign ownership in joint ventures with the Cuban Government. In practice, majority ownership by the foreign partner is nonexistent. Of the 540 joint ventures formed since the Cuban Government issued the first legislation on foreign investment in 1982, 397 remained at the end of 2002, and 287 at the close of 2005. Due in large part to Castro’s recentralization efforts, it is estimated that one joint venture and two small cooperative production ventures have closed each week since 2000. Responding to this decline in the number of joint ventures, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Investment explained that foreign investment is not a pillar of development in and of itself. Moreover, the hostile investment climate, characterized by inefficient and overpriced labor imposed by the communist government, dense regulations, and an impenetrable bureaucracy, continue to deter foreign investment. Foreign direct investment flows decreased from $448 million in 2000 to $39 million in 2001 and were at zero in 2002. In July 2002, the European Union, through its embassies in Havana, transmitted to the Cuban Government a document that outlined the problems encountered in operating joint ventures in Cuba. Titled "The Legal and Administrative Framework for Foreign Trade and Investment by European Companies in Cuba," the paper noted the difficulty in obtaining such basic necessities as work and residence permits for foreign employees--even exit visas and drivers licenses. It complained that the Government of Cuba gave EU joint venture partners little or no say in hiring Cuban staff, often forced the joint venture to contract employees who were not professionally suitable, and yet reserved to itself the right to fire any worker at any time without cause. It noted administrative difficulties in securing financing and warned that "the difficulties of state firms in meeting their payment obligations are seriously threatening some firms and increasing the risk premium which all operators have to pay for their operations with Cuba." The Cuban Government offered no response.

Investors are also constrained by the U.S.-Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act that provides sanctions for those who "traffic" in property expropriated from U.S. citizens. More than a dozen companies have pulled out of Cuba or altered their plans to invest there due to the threat of action under the Libertad Act.
[[Image:Balseros que se van de Cuba.jpg|left|290px]]
In an attempt to provide jobs for workers laid off due to the economic crisis and bring some forms of black market activity into more controllable channels, the Cuban Government in 1993 legalized self-employment for some 150 occupations. This small private sector is tightly controlled and regulated. Set monthly fees must be paid regardless of income earned, and frequent inspections yield stiff fines when any of the many self-employment regulations are violated. Rather than expanding private sector opportunities, in recent years, the government has been attempting to squeeze more of these private sector entrepreneurs out of business and back to the public sector. Many have opted to enter the informal economy or black market, and others have closed. These measures have reduced private sector employment from a peak of 209,000 to less than 100,000 now. Moreover, a large number of those people who nominally are self-employed in reality are well-connected fronts for military officials. No recent figures have been made available, but the Government of Cuba reported at the end of 2001 that tax receipts from the self-employed fell 8.1% due to the decrease in the number of these taxpayers. Since October 1, 2004, the Cuban Government no longer issues new licenses for 40 of the approximately 150 categories of self-employment, including for the most popular ones, such as private restaurants.

In June 2005, 2,000 more licenses were revoked from self-employed workers as a means to reassert government control over the economy and to stem growing inequalities associated with self-employment. The licenses for self-employed workers were typically for service-oriented work, allowing the Cuban people to eke out a small living in an otherwise impoverished state. Moreover, workers in Cuba’s tourist sector--at resorts where native Cubans are prohibited unless they are on the job--have been prohibited by a Ministry of Tourism regulation from accepting gifts, tips, or even food from foreigners, in a further attempt at increasing the tourist apartheid that exists on the island.
[[File:Cuba Oil Pump Havana.jpg|thumb|280px|Oil pump at Havana.]]
A 2004 UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) report recommends that Cuba "redesign the parameters of competition in the public, private and cooperative sectors [and] redefine the role of the state in the economy." It recommends more flexibility in self-employment regulations, property diversification, economic decentralization, and a role for the market. The Cuban Government, however, is today reversing the economic liberalization of the 90s and re-centralizing its economy. Evidence of this is found in the decline in the number of firms participating in the perfeccionamiento empresarial, or entrepreneurial improvement (EI), program, which is based on capitalist management techniques. EI was instituted in the 1980s as a military-led pilot project, and in 1998, the Cuban Government extended it from military to civilian "parastatals," reportedly to foster capitalist competitiveness. At first, the government highlighted participating companies' achievements in cutting costs and boosting profitability and quality and suggested that the increased autonomy of state managers under EI was producing an efficient form of socialism with a strong link between pay and performance. However, many in the Communist Party, even Castro himself, resisted EI. Many of the original participants have since left the program and participating firms have seen little growth in revenue. The EI program has fallen far short of expectations and the Cuban Government no longer heralds its successes or its future prospects. In 2003 the Cuban Government also tightened foreign exchange controls, requiring that state companies hold money in convertible pesos and obtain special authorization from the central bank before making hard currency transactions. Practically speaking, this restricted companies from using the dollar for internal trade. Following this, in 2004 the government announced that all state entities must stop charging in U.S. dollars and charge only in pesos for any products and services not considered a part of a company’s "fundamental social objective." It also recently implemented new requirements to channel imports through monopolistic Soviet-style wholesale distribution companies.

Cuba's precarious economic position is complicated by the high price it must pay for foreign financing. The Cuban Government defaulted on most of its international debt in 1986 and does not have access to credit from international financial institutions like the World Bank, which means Havana must rely heavily on short-term loans to finance imports, chiefly food and fuel. Because of its poor credit rating, an $11 billion hard currency debt, and the risks associated with Cuban investment, interest rates have reportedly been as high as 22%. In 2002, citing chronic delinquencies and mounting short-term debts, Moody's lowered Cuba's credit rating to Caa1 -- "speculative grade, very poor." Dunn and Bradstreet rate Cuba as one of the riskiest economies in the world.

==Health-care==
[[File:Cubans girls.jpg|left]]
Health care in Cuba follows the model of [[socialized medicine]]; all doctors are employees of the government, and the government does not charge citizens for health care. The Cuban health care system is excellent, particularly for such a small and isolated country, providing care by use of community-based family doctors, who must visit each of the 375 homes in their community once a year - patients with chronic conditions are visited four times a year. Expecting mothers are seen a minimum of 12 times during their pregnancy, and access to residential care facilities for pregnant mothers with complications is available, not only for medical conditions but also in cases of the mother living in a remote location far from medical facilities. There is a thriving [[biotech]] industry, producing pharmaceuticals for international sale, including 24 research facilities and 58 manufacturing plants, producing a number of successful vaccines, antigens and cancer treatments, and nearly 70% of all essential medicines used in Cuba are manufactured on the island, ensuring low prices and stability of supplies. The industry has rapidly become the country's second largest export (after nickel), and is on track to produce revenues of $1bn by 2016. Cuba also operates a doctor program around the world to help in resource-scarce areas of the globe, and there are about 15,000 Cuban doctors working in 66 countries all told- more than the combined total of all G8 countries.<ref>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0814/1224322124372.html</ref>

The director of the [[World Health Organization]] said in 2012 that Cuba’s approach gives the world:
:''''“a model for transforming health systems towards the noble ideals of equity and social justice . . . illustrating well that societies that have the least inequality have the best health outcomes, regardless of the levels of spending on health”''.'<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0814/1224322124372.html}}</ref>.
Others, however, are critical - the 2008 US Presidential Republican primary candidate and actor [[Fred Thompson]] has said:
:''"Castro won't allow observers in to monitor his nation's true state, but defectors tell us that many Cubans live with permanent malnutrition and long waits for even basic medical services. Many treatments we take for granted aren't available at all -- except to the Communist elite or foreigners with dollars. For them, Castro keeps "show" clinics equipped with the best medicines and technologies available."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/05/03/the_myth_of_cuban_health_care&Comments=true|title=The myth of Cuban health care|author=Fred Thompson|date=2007-05-03|accessdate=2007-08-14|language=English|format=HTML|work=Townhall.com}}</ref>, t

Since 2010 there have been cutbacks in services, and whether the system can be maintained at the current level is unknown. The country's chief neurosurgeon, [[Hilda Morina]], has publicly protested the government's role in the deterioration of the health care system.
{{Clear}}

==Education==
[[Image:Niñas en el Malecón de La Habana.jpg|right|200px]]
According to the CIA World Factbook, the education system has achieved a 97% [[literacy]] rate on the island.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html|work=Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook|title=Cuba|accessdate=2007-08-14|date=2007-07-19|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

Assistance at universities even in the provinces, while nominally free, requires demonstration of loyalty to the government, such as belonging to the informer network ''Comités de Defensa de la Revolución,'' the Militias, and assistance at pro-government demonstrations.<ref>González Leiva, Juan Carlos 2008 (accessed 8-10-08) EXPULSAN DE UNIVERSIDAD A ESTUDIANTE POR MOTIVOS POLÍTICOS. Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas. La Habana, 10 de junio de 2008 http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/article.asp?artID=15728</ref> In pre-Castro times university fees were waved on presentation of proof of lack of means,

Despite criticisms to the methods of the Cuban Government, the Cuban people enjoy a higher per capita income than the majority of Central American countries. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html)
See [[History of Cuba]].

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of Latin-American painting]]

==External links==
*[http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29961 Fidel Castro: The Teflon Tyrant Resigns]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm]

[[Category:Caribbean Countries]]
[[Category:Islands]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cuba]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Cold War]]

Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T00:08:58Z

Wonders: Undo revision 55765 by Special:Contributions/Scientz (User talk:Scientz)

{{stub}}
The '''Big Bang Theory''' models the Universe as expanding outwards from a very hot, dense initial state approximately 14 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys[https://www.sdss.org/dr5]<ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/]<ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists hotly contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22]
[http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22]
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html] Young earth creationist use the Bible, which they believe to be a literal truth, to trace lineages to estimate the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.

In contrast to young earth creationists, [[Old Earth Creationists|Old Earth Creationists]] and [[Theistic Evolution|Theistic evolutionists]] agree that the Big Bang occured.[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/]. Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. [http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first] However, the Bible makes no mention of the "Big Bang". While the universe has been observed to be expanding, this need not be used as evidence of a Big Bang, because the Bible states in Jeremiah that God "stretched out the heavens".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Theory of evolution]]
[[Category:Evolutionism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]

Jimmy Carter

2007-03-22T00:05:28Z

Wonders:

{{stub}}
Jimmy Carter was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]] following [[Gerald Ford]] and preceding [[Ronald Reagan]]. He was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being the Governor of Georgia. During his presidency he experienced many trying problems such as inflation, energy crisis, dyspepsia and worst of all,the taking of American citizens as hostages by [[Iran]].

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==
[[Carter Doctrine]]

[[Category:Biographies]]

Endothermic reaction

2007-03-22T00:04:34Z

Wonders:

{{stub}}

In chemistry, an '''endothermic reaction''' is a reaction that takes in heat from the surroundings. Endothermic Reactions have the unusual charecteristic that once the temperature reaches 309 degrees [[Kelvin]], the reaction will stop completely. Observers feel that there is evidence that this temperature represents the termperature in [[Heaven]].

[[Category:Physics]]

Cable News Network

2007-03-22T00:02:01Z

Wonders:

'''CNN''' (officially the '''Cable News Network''') is the oldest 24 hour cable news channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]] it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by Time Warner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Turkish]] and [[Gaelic]].

== Allegations of Bias ==
It has been accused by media critics of having a liberal slant to their reporting.
[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]

{{stub2}}

Cable News Network

2007-03-22T00:01:38Z

Wonders:

'''CNN''' (officially the '''Cable News Network''') is the oldest 24 hour cable news channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]] it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by Time Warner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]] and Turkish.[[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Turkish]] and [[Gaelic]].

== Allegations of Bias ==
It has been accused by media critics of having a liberal slant to their reporting.
[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]

{{stub2}}

Country and Western

2007-03-21T23:48:06Z

Wonders:

'''Country and Western''' is a genre of musical style that has remained popular in the [[United States of America]] as well as other countries.

Country and Western originated in the [[South]] and remains most popular there today. It is a mix of [[blues]] and [[folk music]]. Some of the most famous country musicians include [[Hank Williams]], [[Bonnie Langford]], [[Nick Cave]], [[Blixa Bargeld]] and [[Jimmy Rogers]]. Modern country artists today include [[Brad Paysly]] and [[Kris Kristofferson]]. Many [[rock and roll]] musicians overlap into country and western too.

Los Angeles

2007-03-21T23:43:15Z

Wonders:

'''Los Angeles''' (Spanish for "'''City of Angels'''", often called "'''L.A.'''" or just "'''LA'''") is a city in [[California]], the biggest city in the state. approximately 3.8 million people reside in LA. The city is quite large, covering nearly 500 square miles. The movie industry of Hollywood is based in the Hollywood district of LA. Many world-class aerospace firms are there too, like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Howard Hawks Aviation. Beaches line the coast, from Malibu beach to the noth, to Venice Beach at the south. Long Beach is the nearby port, and is the largest port on the west Coast, larger even than Seattle or San Diego. Oil refineries lie along the southern coastline, in Torrance, and in the north there is the San Gabriel Valley, a huge suburban zone. All the water for Los Angeles comes from Colorado, and also from Mexico.

Los Feliz is where the artists live, also they live in Venice and also Downtown. West Hollywood is where all the homeosexuals live. Many many people from all over the world live in LA, and as a result there are restaurants from well over 300 nations there. However, it is famously very hard to get good cheese in Los Angeles. The weather is excellent all year around, which is why the movie business moved there - the light is excellent for 'shooting' for over 300 days a year. The Mayor os LA is Anthony Varigoso, and City Hall is a very notable big building Downtown, where there are also a lot of skyscrapers.

Los Angeles

2007-03-21T23:36:01Z

Wonders: New page: Los Angeles is a big city in California, the second biggest city after San Diego. Many many poeple live there, and it's very big - stretching almost 100 miles north to south and east to w...

Los Angeles is a big city in California, the second biggest city after San Diego. Many many poeple live there, and it's very big - stretching almost 100 miles north to south and east to west. It is the centre of the Godless Hollywood movie business. Many world-class aerospace firms are there too, like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Howard Hawks Aviation. Beaches line the coast, from Malibu beach to the noth, to Venice Beach at the south. Long Beach is the nearby port, and is the largest port on the west Coast, larger even than Seattle or San Diego. Oil refineries lie along the southern coastline, in Torrance, and in the north there is the San Gabriel Valley, a huge suburban zone. All the water for Los Angeles comes from Colorado, and also from Mexico.